Recipient Organization
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
(N/A)
ITHACA,NY 14853
Performing Department
Communication
Non Technical Summary
An unfortunately common result of public controversy is polarization into ingroups versus outgroups. Previous work by the PI supported by federal capacity funds showed how intergroup polarization results in linguistic bias, and several workshops on how to recognize such bias, in the specific context of the controversy over hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale, were delivered to CCE educators and the Cornell Municipal Clerks Institute. The proposed research extends the focus of that work from recognizing linguistic bias to understanding its effects on parties directly involved in controversies. Coinciding with the aims of our CaRDI collaborators, we are particularly interested in examining how the effects of biased language by intermediaries impacts the outcomes of negotiations made between community members. For example, theory from the psychology and conflict resolution suggests that the presence of biased communication may reduce the likelihood that the parties would be willing or able to find productive solutions. A second focus of the proposed research is the role of communication media on intergroup dynamics surrounding public controversies, in light of the dramatic expansion from traditional face-to-face town meetings to internationally networked social media. Today Internet Enabled Communication (IEC) allows anyone to choose a side in a controversy, no matter their degree of direct involvement. It is important to understand how features of IEC (e.g., publicness; anonymity), and under what circumstances IEC affect intergroup communication. Furthermore, our final aim is to expand our understanding of how language impacts negotiations in intergroup situations. Recent research links abstract thinking and language to integrative negotiation processes, yet this connection has not been examined within an intergroup context, such as the one developed around a public controversy. Once these various research questions have been empirically explored, we plan to create training materials and exercises for CCE instructors to use with community intermediaries. The proposed research will examine: a) how biased intergroup communication affects the target of said bias b) how IEC impacts and affects reduction of biased intergroup communication; c) how language impacts negotiation and deliberation processes; d) strategies to reduce intergroup polarization through reduction in linguistic bias.
Animal Health Component
40%
Research Effort Categories
Basic
60%
Applied
40%
Developmental
(N/A)
Goals / Objectives
The research centers on the linguistic intergroup bias (LIB), in which abstract words are systematically paired with positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors while concrete words are paired with negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors. This bias reinforces stereotypical perceptions of both ingroups and outgroups and is particularly insidious because of its subtlety. Research shows the production of LIB is widespread, but little is known of its effects on targets. Work I began with previous federal capacity funds suggests, for example, that LIB has negative effects on self-esteem. The proposed research will further examine LIB effects on: a) willingness to engage in problem-solving dialogue and; b) likelihood of reaching integrative (i.e., win-win) solutions to contested issues. Further, this work will examine how these effects may differ across different communication media, how language impacts negotiation outcomes in intergroup contexts, and how controlling LIB may impact perceptions of outgroup members.
Project Methods
Paradigm 1 - Linguistic Bias and Perceptions of IntermediariesAs we have argued, there is practically no direct data on how linguistic bias affects targets (Beukeboom, 2014). Therefore, the objectives of the studies within this paradigm are to examine the effects of biased language of intermediary agents within public controversies on target audiences.We propose a series of experimental studies to examine various aspects of this basic question, using the following basic design:Stimulus materials. The stimuli will be based on transcripts excerpted from community meetings over various public controversies. We seek issues where people take clear sides on the issue, and we will work with our CaRDI colleagues to identify examples that we can use as models to develop our materials (e.g., shale gas development using hydraulic fracturing; siting of wind energy turbines; decisions involving permitting casinos.). We will craft a transcript centered on a heated point during a meeting wherein a participant on one side of the controversy makes a very negative offensive comment about adherents to the other side of the controversy, requiring an intervention of the meeting moderator.Independent variables. The moderator intervention will contain our main independent variable. We will manipulate the comments to convey linguistic bias against one group or the other, plus a no-bias control condition. Additional independent variables will be included in follow-up studies (i.e., whether meeting is face-to-face vs. online; the specific controversial issue; the intermediary's role as moderator, vs. arbitrator).Dependent variables. Our measures would include perceptions of the moderator's group membership (i.e., member of ingroup or outgroup or neutral) amount and direction of moderator's bias, moderator's credibility and effectiveness, the quality of the intervention the moderator offers, and willingness to have this individual moderate future controversial meetings.Samples. We will define different "publics" related to the various controversies we study We will develop additional on-campus and community-based issues partially with the help of our CaRDI collaborators. Examples of topics we have already explored with them include decisions related to issues over land use and energy, policies related to climate change, strategies to control invasive species, casino gambling, and police militarization.Paradigm 2 - Construal Level Theory and NegotiationsWe propose a 2 (high vs. low construal) by 2 (high vs. low social categorization salience) experimental study in which people will be engaged in a negotiation task. We will measure quality of the negotiation process and solution.Task. We will use a template from a standard negotiation task, or from previous studies to develop a task based on an issue that we identify in conjunction with our CaRDI collaborators, such as the debate over hydraulic fracturing. The task will be developed to allow us to score the solution quality on a continuum from integrative to distributive.Independent Variables. We will use linguistic abstraction to manipulate construal level. The manipulation will be embedded in narrative descriptions of the partners in the upcoming negotiation. The social categorization salience manipulation will also be embedded in the narratives. In the high conditions the differences in the negotiation partner's position on the issue will be described in categorical terms and with respect to the person belonging to a group of like-minded people. No mention of group membership will be made in the low categorization condition.Dependent Variables. We will measure the extent of participants' stereotyping of their partners participants' perceptions of the negotiation process (fairness, satisfactions, etc.), and the quality of the negotiation solution.Samples and Settings. We will conduct the study on a laboratory student sample and replicate it with a community-based sample.Paradigm 3 - Controlling Linguistic BiasSpecific communication goals can affect people's likelihood and ability to reduce linguistic bias. Our goal is to examine this effect in light of communication medium, specific type of controversy, type of interaction and target reactions. Our final goal is to use what we learn from these investigations to develop specific training materials, targeted for public controversy intermediaries, on how subtle forms of linguistic bias can be identified and controlled.Experimental studies within this paradigm will follow one of two basic designs. The first will attempt to replicate Douglas, et al., 2008, and focus on people's ability to control linguistic bias:Stimulus materials. We will use transcripts from heated segments of meetings about public controversies. For these studies, however, rather than supplying an intermediary response we will ask participants to respond to an offensive comment from member of one side toward the other side.Independent Variables. The main independent variables will be the group identify of the speaker making the offensive comment, thus participant will be faced with an offensive comment made by someone on the same side of the issue as themselves (i.e., ingroup) or from someone on the other side of the controversy (i.e., the outgroup), and instructions regarding the control of bias (i.e., produce unbiased response; produce pro-ingroup and anti-outgroup biased response; no instruction control). Additional independent variables to be considered in various studies include communication medium (face-to-face vs. online), the specific controversy, and the nature of the meeting (decision-making vs. information dissemination).Dependent Variables. The main dependent variables will be the degree of linguistic bias seen in the comments produced by respondents under each condition.The second design will focus on response to attempts at controlling biased communication.Stimulus materials/Procedure. Participants will be asked to consider that they are going to select a person to moderate a meeting about a controversial topic. They will be given examples of transcripts of previous meetings moderated by candidates whose content will contain the manipulation of one of our main independent variables (described below).Independent variables. The manipulation of bias in the communication from the targeted individuals will be as in previous studies, (i.e., pro- one or the other of the sides in the controversy, and unbiased version). The other variable within this study will be a manipulation of participants' expectations of how well the candidates have learned to control bias. For example, one possible manipulation would be to tell participants that one candidate is a student in a conflict resolution training program, whereas another candidate will be described as a professional will a lot of experience in controlling bias. Thus, the basic experimental design will involve expectations of high and low bias crossed with communications that actually contain bias or not. Additional variables will include the specific controversy and the nature of the interaction (i.e., information dissemination vs. decision-making).Dependent variables. The measures will include ratings of the target person's credibility, amount of bias, and likelihood of choosing the targeted person for the moderator position.In both of these designs we will conduct studies across different samples, as described in previous studies.