Labeling harmful acts euphemistically increases how cruelly people behave

Evidence

Language shapes the perception of events and the thought patterns on which people base many of their actions. The personal and social acceptability of given activities, therefore, can differ markedly depending on what those activities are called. Euphemistic machinations are used widely to detach and depersonalize doers from harmful activities (Lutz, 1987). Cloaking detrimental activities in euphemisms can be a powerful weapon. For example, people behave much more cruelly when assaultive actions are given a sanitized label than when they are called aggression (Diener, Dineen, Endresen, Beaman, & Fraser, 1975). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 366 (#expands, via linked claim)

Linguistic camouflaging of the detrimental effects of social policies and practices is a flourishing morally neutralizing strategy (Bolinger, 1980; Lakoff, 2002; Lutz, 1987; Rothwell, 1982). Sanitizing language is not just a word game, however. It shapes people’s perception of reality and increases their willingness to engage in detrimental activities (Bandura, 1999). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2694 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Linguistic camouflaging of the detrimental effects of social policies and practices is a flourishing morally neutralizing strategy (Bolinger, 1980; Lakoff, 2002; Lutz, 1987; Rothwell, 1982). Sanitizing language is not just a word game, however. It shapes people’s perception of reality and increases their willingness to engage in detrimental activities (Bandura, 1999). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2694 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Euphemistic language like ‘collateral damage’ severs accountability for harm — Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom,…, 1281; Harmdoers rationalize by elevating science and derogating victims; Justified cruelty harms victims more than unapologetic cruelty does (+13 more)

Broader Connections