A surprising lack of consequences when constraining language
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Labels considered normatively appropriate for specific social identity groups change. Researchers have examined the effects of censorship and slur usage, but minimal research examines the psychological consequences of imposing new language constraints on people. Methods Across four samples of university students ( N total = 997), we sought participants' compliance in avoiding usage of numerous commonplace group labels while they wrote essays about obese people (Sample 1) or specific ethnic groups (Samples 2-4). Results We observed consistently high compliance rates: participants either invented novel terminology to describe the group or avoided group labels entirely. We observed a substantial absence of task discomfort, attitudinal shifts regarding the group, or motivational shifts, according to Bayesian analyses. Nor did we detect negative effects of language constraint among people who saw themselves as opposed to censorship. Discussion Although free speech and respectful language remain a multifaceted social debate, our findings show that university students are willing to follow even completely contrived language directives when describing social identity groups and to do so without substantial discomfort or backlash against those groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".