No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Appearing credible? Swearing helps!
Psychology, Crime and Law
Abstract
The use of swearwords has hardly been investigated scientifically. Virtually nothing is known about the efficacy of swearing. The present studies set out to investigate whether the inclusion of swearwords in a testimony increases the believability of that statement. In study 1, respondents were simply asked whether they believed that using swearwords is a sign of credibility, a sign of deceit, or neither. In the second and third study, participants had to read fictitious testimonies of a suspect and a victim, respectively. Participants were exposed to testimonies with or without swearwords. The results suggested that people self-reported to find swearwords a sign of deceit (study 1), but when actually confronted with a statement, the opposite turned out to be the case (studies 2 and 3). That is, testimonies containing swearwords were perceived as more credible than swearword-free testimonies. Hence it is concluded that swearing increases believability of statements.
... Although my attention was drawn to this manuscript amusingly, it had a profound impact on my research direction, raising more questions than it answered. A quick literature search to explore this newfound curiosity revealed that swearing is associated with not only improvements in physical performance, but a decrease in pain perception, [2][3][4][5][6] heightened humor, 7 conveying credibility, 8 enhancing solidarity and rapport building, 7,[9][10][11] and improvements in memory and recall. 12,13 It became evident that swearing is associated with positive physiological, psychological, and social effects that other forms of language could not replicate. ...
... The limitations of non-naturalistic research and the significance of contextual factors in determining the outcomes of swearing have been described by Stapleton,33 and are underscored by research from Rassin and van der Heijden. 8 When simply asked whether using a swear word is a sign of credibility, deceit, or neither, people tend to view swearing as an indicator of deceit. However, in the context of testimonies provided by crime suspects and victims, testimonies containing swear words were perceived as more credible than those without. ...
... However, in the context of testimonies provided by crime suspects and victims, testimonies containing swear words were perceived as more credible than those without. 8 This demonstrates the crucial role that context plays in the perception of swearing. The physical therapist in this case swore as a means to convey empathy and acknowledge the patient's hardships. ...
... Swearing has been shown to index solidarity (Daly et al., 2004), intimacy (Stapleton, 2003), differing forms of masculinity (De Klerk, 1997) and femininity (S. E. Hughes, 1992), honesty (Feldman et al., 2017), believability (Rassin & Heijden, 2005) and lack of intelligence (DeFrank & Kahlbaugh, 2019), among other traits. The activation of these social meanings also depends on language-external factors such as speaker gender (Howell & Giuliano, 2011), ethnicity (Jacobi, 2014) and social status (T. ...
... For example, swearing can improve the general impression of a politician, although it can also decrease the persuasiveness of their message (Cavazza & Guidetti, 2014). Elsewhere, swearing has been shown to increase a speaker's perceived believability (Rassin & Heijden, 2005) and workplace effectiveness (Johnson, 2012), as well as improving a hearer's attitude towards a topic of conversation (Scherer & Sagarin, 2006). ...
... Similar effects were found for swearing in Dutch on the perceived credibility of victims and suspects in a criminal trial (Rassin & Heijden, 2005). Rassin and Heijden (2005) first asked a group of undergraduates whether they thought that the use of swearwords was a sign of deceitfulness, truthfulness or neither. ...
This thesis is about linguistic variation in swearing and its consequences for how speakers are socially evaluated. Abundant research has established that, beyond its perception as rude or impolite, swearing is hugely socially meaningful in a variety of ways (Stapleton, 2010; Beers Fägersten, 2012). Swearing has been shown to index solidarity (Daly et al., 2004), intimacy (Stapleton, 2003), differing forms of masculinity (De Klerk, 1997) and femininity (S. E. Hughes, 1992), honesty (Feldman et al., 2017), believability (Rassin & Heijden, 2005) and lack of intelligence (DeFrank & Kahlbaugh, 2019), among other traits. The activation of these social meanings also depends on language-external factors such as speaker gender (Howell & Giuliano, 2011), ethnicity (Jacobi, 2014) and social status (T. Jay & Janschewitz, 2008). What has not been established is whether this also depends on language-internal factors such as pronunciation, word formation or sentence structure. This thesis investigates the effect of variation from three different domains of language - phonetics, morphology and semantics/pragmatics - on social evaluation of a speaker. To do so, the thesis takes an experimental approach using the variationist sociolinguistic framework. For variation in each domain, two experiments were used to test for different levels of awareness, following Squires’s (2016) approach for grammatical variation (see also Schmidt, 1990). One experiment tested whether people perceived the variation, while a second tested whether people noticed the variation in the process of social evaluation; the concepts of perceiving and noticing roughly map to the Labovian concepts of the sociolinguistic indicator and marker respectively (Labov, 1972). At the level of phonetics, variation in the realisation of variable (ING) in swearwords (e.g., fucking vs fuckin) was first tested using a variant categorization task, revealing that listeners have an implicit bias towards the velar [IN] variant when hearing swearwords, compared to neutral words and non-words. An auditory matched-guise task then revealed that this same bias affects how listeners extract social information from (ING) tokens attached to swearwords in relation to social meanings typically associated with the variable (Schleef et al., 2017). This result suggests that, rather than pronunciation affecting how swearwords are socially evaluated, swearwords can affect how other phonetic sources of social meaning are evaluated.
... Furthermore, Feldman et al. (2017) note that profanity in language may be indicative of honesty and integrity. In the same line, Rassin and Heijden (2005) show that swearing is unconsciously perceived as a sign of credibility in court testimonies. Research participants, who self-reported that swearwords in court testimonies may be a sign of deceit, unconsciously perceived testimonies that contained swearwords as more credible than testimonies that were swear-free. ...
... Self-reported data, however, may not be an entirely reliable source for investigating the speech behaviour of swearing. On the one hand, socio-pragmatic skills, especially in a second language, may not be part of learners' metalinguistic awareness, and on the other hand, as previously discussed, the cognitive effects of swearing may be unconscious and in conflict with one's conscious view of swearing (see Cavazza and Guidetti 2014;Rassin and Heijden 2005). ...
... The current study, in line with previous findings (e.g. Cavazza and Guidetti 2014;Rassin and Heijden 2005), further reveals that the cognitive effects of swearing may be unconscious and in conflict with the speaker's conscious views of language and linguistic behaviours. These observations have important implications for theories of second language pragmatic development. ...
The present study argues that the speech behavior of swearing in bilingual speakers is more complex and nuanced than it has been previously assumed. Second language users are likely to acquire swearwords as an unconscious ingroup social strategy or as a mechanism for second language identity construction. Swearing is a complex sociolinguistic practice and is driven, in part, by the type of emotion that is evoked in the communicative context. Using web-based emotion evoking video scenarios, the present study elicited linguistic data from 34 speakers of English as a second language, with Persian, Arabic, Spanish, and Portuguese as the first languages. Participants viewed 14 mute, multi-second visual scenarios that displayed either a high-arousing or a low-arousing emotional situation. Participants then answered questions about each scenario in both English and their first language. The results revealed that utterances produced in response to high-arousing emotional scenarios contained swearing in both English and the respondents’ first languages, while scenarios that evoked low-arousing emotions resulted in a significant general preference for swearing in English. The frequency of swearing in the first language significantly reduced in response to low-arousing emotional situations mainly through replacing swearwords with interjections. The role of heuristic-systematic information processing in the emergence of such swearing patterns will be further discussed.
Full article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01434632.2020.1755293
... Instead, studies have focused on reasons for swearing (Rassin & Muris) or descriptions of swearing in television programming (Kaye & Sapolsky, 2009). An exception is work by Rassin and van der Heijden (2005), which examined the believability of statements in hypothetical criminal interrogations and crime victim testimony. Statements containing swearwords were seen as more believable, even though respondents to a more general question (i.e., does the presence of swearwords indicate a statement is truthful, deceitful, or neither) perceived the presence of swearwords to be associated with deceit (Rassin & van der Heijden). ...
... Second, Jay (1981) and Winters and Duck (2001) noted the dearth of attention paid to communicator, relationship, and contextual factors in the study of swearing and advocate examining these variables to better understand how swearing is used and perceived in interaction. Indeed, Rassin and van der Heijden (2005) found that people responded differently to the notion of swearing expressions in general than they did to the use of the words in specific, contextualized scenarios, providing additional support for the need to consider the specifics of the interaction context. Finally, message factors are important because specific swearing messages are perceived differently by evaluators, even when context is not included in the evaluation (Jay & Janschewitz, 2008). ...
... For example, swearing focusing on the hearer may be more surprising than messages lacking a specific target or directed at a third party. Rassin and van der Heijden (2005) noted that swearing targeted at the message receiver may yield different effects than that directed at third parties. The messages with the lowest mean level of surprise in social and formal settings were ''oh, shit'' and ''that sucks.'' ...
This study investigates perceptions of swearing from an expectancy violations perspective. Degree of expectancy violation is hypothesized to depend on several communicator, relationship, contextual, and message characteristics. Results support that expectancy violations are related to the formality of the situation in which swearing occurs and the specific swearing phrase. No support is found for swearer's sex or status as predictors of expectancy violations. Hearer's degree of surprise perceived is associated with perceptions that the speaker is incompetent. These results support the usefulness of expectancy violations theory as an explanation for perceptions of swearing.
... In particular, swearing may be used to display affiliation with others, to construct group membership, and to foster/display intimacy and trust (Beers Fägersten 2012;Jay & Janschewitz 2008;Montagu 1967Montagu /2001Norrick 2012;Stapleton 2003Stapleton , 2010. Swearing may also be used for rhetorical and stylistic purposes: to enhance the effectiveness and impact of the message and/or the credibility of the speaker (Cavazza & Guidetti 2014;Norrick 2012;Rassin & Van Der Heijden 2005;Stapleton 2010). Finally, swearing may be used as an identity resource: to present and manage the impressions conveyed to others. ...
... Another rhetorical/perceptual benefit of swearing may be to increase credibility and/or persuasivenessof both messages and speakers themselves. Rassin & Van Der Heijden (2005) showed that fictitious legal testimonies containing swear words were judged as more believable than those without. Similar results were obtained by Scherer & Sagarin (2006), who found that participants judged messages containing a mild swear word to be more persuasive than those without. ...
This encyclopaedia of one of the major fields of language studies is a continuously updated source of state-of-the-art information for anyone interested in language use. The IPrA Handbook of Pragmatics provides easy access – for scholars with widely divergent backgrounds but with convergent interests in the use and functioning of language – to the different topics, traditions and methods which together make up the field of pragmatics, broadly conceived as the cognitive, social and cultural study of language and communication, i.e. the science of language use.
The Handbook of Pragmatics is a unique reference work for researchers, which has been expanded and updated continuously with annual installments since 1995.
Also available as Online Resource: https://benjamins.com/online/hop
... The vulgar message, regardless of the nature of the swear word, induced greater attitude change toward the topic when the source was a woman rather than a man, even if in both cases profanity had a detrimental effect on the perceived credibility of the communicator. Other studies carried out in the judicial domain suggest that the persuasive effect of vulgar language occurs without recipients' awareness: Although respondents perceived swear words as a sign of deceit, their presence actually increased the believability of fictitious statements (Rassin & van der Heijden, 2005). Finally, Scherer and Sagarin (2006) manipulated the presence/absence of a swear word in a 5-minute video addressed to university students by a male speaker supporting a pro-attitudinal topic (i.e., lowering university tuition). ...
... people swear not only for expressing emotions but also because, in the course of experience, they have associated this behavior with its communicative efficacy), we cannot claim that this is a conscious and deliberate strategy. Indeed, in line with Rassin and van der Heijden (2005), we found friction between what participants generally think about the persuasiveness of a vulgar message and their judgments when actually confronted with such a message. Indeed, in our data, the vulgar message delivered by the male politician was at the same time the most influencing and the one considered the least persuasive. ...
An experimental study investigated the effect of politicians’ profanity and gender on their perceived and actual persuasiveness. Results showed that a candidate’s use of swear words increased the perception of language informality and improved the general impression about the source. The latter effect was particularly strong for male candidate, as female candidate was already evaluated positively, irrespective of her cursing. In addition, though the manipulation of the politician’s vulgarity did not directly affect participants’ self-reported likelihood of voting for him or her, an indirect effect through language informality and impression about the candidate emerged. On the contrary, profanity use reduced perceived persuasiveness of the message, suggesting that the influence of swearing could be automatic and unaware. Theoretical implications are discussed.
... Similarly, in the USA the Federal Communication Commission tries to regulate speech that may be considered offensive on radio and television. However, most people in Western society admit to uttering a swear word from time to time (Rassin & Van der Heijden, 2005). According to recent literature (e.g., Baruch & Jenkins, 2007) this has been happening more and more regularly in our conversations with other people since the 1960's and has therefore almost become a new norm in our contemporary language use. ...
... In the long-term, it can even result in a loss of social status and a decrease in emotional support. In addition, for some people, swearing may become a habit, probably no longer serving any function at all (Rassin & Muris, 2005;Rassin & Van der Heijden, 2005;Van Lancker & Cummings, 1999). Table 1 summarizes the primary intra-individual and inter-individual effects of swearing. ...
Swearing, also known as cursing, can be best described as a form of linguistic activity utilizing taboo words to convey the expression of strong emotions. Although swearing and cursing are frequently occurring behaviors, the actual functions of swearing remain largely unknown. Since swearing typically includes taboo words, these words can be more powerful than non-swear words. Therefore, people who swear are often judged negatively, because the uttered swearwords can shock and disturb others, though the comments of others are strongly dependent on contextual factors. In this review, we provide an insight into the current state of the literature with respect to the interpersonal functions of swearing. In addition, we briefly discuss neurological, psychosocial and contextual factors that may contribute to person's swearing behavior. Swearing is hypothesized to produce a catharsis-effect, which results in a relief of stress or pain. Swearing also influences the perceived credibility, intensity, and persuasiveness of the swearer. Additionally, swearing can have a variety of interpersonal consequences, including promoting group bonding and solidarity, inhibiting aggression, eliciting humor, and causing emotional pain to others. This paper further presents a hypothetical model of swearing that draws from basic emotion research in an attempt to provide a scaffolding for future research.
... The positive physiological, psychological, and social effects of swearing may contribute to its high prevalence. Swearing has been shown to improve physical performance (Stephens et al., 2018Jiannine and Antonio, 2023), increase self-confidence , increase humor (Beers Fägersten, 2012;Stephens et al., 2022), improve credibility (Rassin and van der Heijden, 2005), strengthen social connections (Daly et al., 2004;Stapleton, 2010;Beers Fägersten, 2012;Giffin, 2016), and improve memory and recall (MacKay et al., 2004;Jay et al., 2008). Thus, swearing appears to produce beneficial effects across various physiological and psychological domains. ...
Swearing, or the use of taboo language, has been repeatedly shown to induce hypoalgesia. While reliable hypoalgesic effects have been observed across studies, the mechanisms by which swearing influences pain and the optimal dosage of swearing remain poorly understood. Plausible mechanistic rationale for swearing’s impact on pain include sympathetic response, emotion, humor, distraction, aggression, state disinhibition, psychological flow, risky behavior, and self-confidence. It remains unknown how the intensity of the swear word, speech volume, frequency, or timing influences pain modulation. While the majority of evidence demonstrates the efficacy of swearing at attenuating acute pain responses, these studies have utilized healthy populations with controlled experiments in laboratory settings. Comparatively, less is known about how laboratory findings translate practically/clinically to diverse populations, various dosages, and different pain chronicities. A greater understanding of mechanistic underpinnings and practical implications are necessary to feasibly implement swearing as a therapeutic modality to combat pain. The purpose of the following mini-review is to provide an overview of the current evidence on swearing for the reduction of pain, speculate on plausible underlying mechanisms, and discuss the potential for optimization of swearing for real-world translation. Lastly, identifying knowledge gaps to aid in directing future research will be discussed.
... An interesting finding of the present study was that student-athletes rated speeches across conditions significantly more effective than nonstudent-athletes. One possible explanation for this is that expressive words increase a coach's credibility and sincerity more than words that are not expressive (Rassin & Heijden, 2005). From the perspective of student-athletes, using such words increases a coach's effectiveness (Howell & Giuliano, 2011). ...
Although expletive use is considered taboo in most societies, expletives are commonly used in sports. However, the impact of expletives on coaching effectiveness has not received significant attention because of the unique nature of sports in which fierce competition is condoned and even encouraged. In the current study, the researchers aim to examine whether expletives alter the effectiveness of speeches given by coaches across genders. Collecting data from a total of 133 respondents, ANOVA demonstrated that expletive word use during halftime speeches by coaches did not play a role in diminishing the coaching effectiveness, regardless of the coach's gender and the players' gender. Additionally, male and female participants perceived expletive speech differently, and student-athletes rated the speeches as significantly more effective than the nonstudent-athletes. This study suggests practical implications for female coaches, who may consider stepping out of traditional expected roles (e.g., supportive and caring) and adopting language in coaching traditionally reserved for male coaches, given that their choice of language will not negatively impact their coaching effectiveness. However, further examination is needed for the robustness of our findings as the current study does not necessarily demonstrate an increase in effectiveness or a positive shift in perceptions from the use of expletives.
... Profanity is more tolerable in private gatherings as compared to formal meetings [64,83] and within the same gender groups as compared with groups involving mixed genders [61]. The objectives of using profane language include social bonding, handling emotional and physical pain, emotional catharsis, expressing power and control, establishing dominant-submissive relationships, confronting authorities, labeling others, conveying aggression, and humiliating others [64,66,67,[84][85][86][87][88][89][90]. Profanity is also used for humor and comedy [91][92][93] and to stimulate sexual excitement (Teresa E. [80]). ...
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2023/8821517/
Background. Swearing is an increasing trend among men and women worldwide. Earlier studies on the positive aspects of profanity mostly relate to pain management and the release of negative emotions. The uniqueness of the current study is its analysis for a possible constructive role of profanity in stress, anxiety, and depression. Method. The current survey involved 253 conveniently selected participants from Pakistan. The study analyzed the role of profanity in connection to stress, anxiety, and depression. Profanity Scale and the Urdu version of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale were used along with a structured interview schedule. Descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and -test were implied to obtain results. Results. The study revealed that the usage of profane language had significantly inverse correlations with stress (; ), anxiety (; ), and depression (; ). Higher profaners also revealed significantly lower levels of depression (, vs. , ; ; Cohen’s ) and stress (, vs. , ; ; Cohen’s ) as compared to lower profaners. Profanity had no significant correlations with age (; ) and education (; ). Men projected significantly higher levels of profanity as compared to women. Conclusion. The current study viewed profanity similar to the self-defense mechanisms and emphasized on its cathartic role in stress, anxiety, and depression.
... Judiciously used, swearing can also increase credibility and/or persuasiveness of both messages and speakers themselves. In evaluations of constructed testimonies/messages, Rassin and Van Der Heijden (2005) and Scherer and Sagarin (2006) found that texts containing swear words were judged as more believable and/or persuasive than those without. In addition, Cavazza and Guidetti (2014) found that the inclusion of swear words in fictitious blogs enhanced participants' evaluations of hypothetical political candidates. ...
Swearing produces effects that are not observed with other forms of language use. Thus, swearing is powerful. It generates a range of distinctive outcomes: physiological, cognitive, emotional, pain-relieving, interactional and rhetorical. However, we know that the power of swearing is not intrinsic to the words themselves. Hence, our starting question is: How does swearing get its power? In this Overview Paper, our aim is threefold. (1) We present an interdisciplinary analysis of the power of swearing (‘what we know’), drawing on insights from cognitive studies, pragmatics, communication, neuropsychology, and biophysiology. We identify specific effects of swearing, including, inter alia: emotional force and arousal; increased attention and memory; heightened autonomic activity, such as heart rate and skin conductance; hypoalgesia (pain relief); increased strength and stamina; and a range of distinctive interpersonal, relational and rhetorical outcomes. (2) We explore existing (possible) explanations for the power of swearing, including, in particular, the hypothesis that aversive classical conditioning takes place via childhood punishments for swearing. (3) We identify and explore a series of questions and issues that remain unanswered by current research/theorising (‘what we don’t know’), including the lack of direct empirical evidence for aversive classical conditioning; and we offer directions for future research.
... It is for this reason that attempts have been made to draw on research from the field of psycholinguistics in application to counselling, to undergird speculation that swearing might promote therapeutic processes (Beers Fägersten & Stapleton, 2017;Esposito, 2014;Minot, 2013;n.d.;Trickey, 2016). Some of the assumed potential benefits of appropriately placed, measured swearing include making the counselor appear in a clinical situation or disclosure: a) credible (Cavazza & Guidetti, 2014;Rassin & Heijden, 2005); b) honest, authentic, or sincere (Cavazza & Guidetti, 2014;Feldman et al., 2017); c) trustworthy (Beers Fägersten, 2012); d) less judgmental, stigmatizing, or morally superior Hughes, 2006); e) more human, empathic or caring, given the emotive element of profanity (Fleming & Lempert, 2011), and; f) persuasive in making educational points needing strong emphasis (Scherer & Sagarin, 2006). Although empirical evidence of the positive consequences of swearing in the fields of linguistics and psychology appear promising (Bergen, 2016;Jay, 2009b;K. ...
In this overview, the existing research on swearing, cussing, and cursing is surveyed in the context of mental health therapy and counseling-related pursuits. Swearing is a subject of longstanding controversy, dating back to the days in which prominent figures of the psychotherapeutic tradition like Albert Ellis and Fritz Perls affirmed profane language in their counseling interviews. Although profanity is seemingly taken for granted as a categorically taboo subject matter in present-day counseling, the notion that swearing might add value to counseling remains underrepresented in the literature. Presented here are studies both supporting and contradicting the generally accepted standards for counselor use of profanity in clinical practice,
illustrating the context-laden aspects of the importance of language. This article represents a platform that could act to further academic inquiry in the context of swearing in therapy on the part of therapists in framing, staking out, and subsequently showing their own position on whether swearing is simply wrong or that there is a 'right way' to use it. Ultimately the underpinnings of this article focus on an introduction to a much deeper problematic of language in therapy.
... Besides the analgesic function of swearing, there are various other (potentially positive) functions of swearing. Rassin and Heijden (2005) showed that although people do not believe that taboo words increase the credibility of a statement, participants in fact consider a statement more credible when it contains swear words. Cavazza and Guidetti (2014) hypothesized that people implicitly learn that taboo words reinforce the effectiveness of a message and therefore tend to use taboo words more often when they want to convince others. ...
Swearing, cursing, expletives – all these terms are used to describe the utterance of taboo words. Studies show that swearing makes up around 0.5% of the daily spoken content, however, the inter-individual variability is very high. One kind of pathologic swearing is coprolalia in Tourette syndrome (TS), which describes the involuntary outburst of taboo words. Coprolalia occurs in approximately 20-30% of all patients with TS. This review compares swearing in healthy people and coprolalia in people with TS and is the first one to develop a multidimensional framework to account for both phenomena from a similar perspective. Different research findings are embedded in one theoretical framework consisting of reasons, targets, functions/effects and influencing factors for swearing and coprolalia. Furthermore, the very limited research investigating obscene gestures and copropraxia, compulsive obscene gestures, is summarized. New research questions and gaps are brought up for swearing, obscene gestures and coprophenomena.
... This is also consistent with empirical evidence suggesting that people who express themselves in a socially undesirable manner are ironically judged to be more sincere. For instance, while swearing is considered rude and even immoral (Jay, 2009), witnesses who use more swear words are considered more credible (Rassin & Van Der Heijden, 2005). Moreover, while politically incorrect language may be considered disrespectful to certain subgroups of the population, people using it are perceived as more authentic (Rosenblum et al., 2020). ...
Evaluating other people's sincerity is a ubiquitous and important part of social interactions. Fourteen experiments (total N = 7,565; 10 preregistered; 11 in the main article, three in the online supplemental materials; with U.S. American and British members of the public, and French students) show that response speed is an important cue on which people base their sincerity inferences. Specifically, people systematically judged slower (vs. faster) responses as less sincere for a range of scenarios from trivial daily conversations to high stakes situations such as police interrogations. Our findings suggest that this is because slower responses are perceived to be the result of the responder suppressing automatic, truthful thoughts, and fabricating a novel answer. People also seem to have a rich lay theory of response speed, which takes into account a variety of situational factors. For instance, the effect of response delay on perceived sincerity is smaller if the response is socially undesirable, or if it can be attributed to mental effort. Finally, we showed that explicit instructions to ignore response speed can reduce the effect of response speed on judgments on sincerity. Our findings not only help ascertain the role of response speed in interpersonal inference making processes, but also carry important practical implication. In particular, the present study highlights the potential effects that may be observed in judicial settings, because the response speed of innocent suspects may mislead people to judge them as insincere and hence guilty. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
... Research has furthermore established a range of physical, mental, and social benefits of swearing (see Vingerhoets et al. 2013 for a full review). Not only can swearing be pain-relieving (Stephens, Atkins and Kingston 2009;Stephens and Umland 2011), stress-reducing (Rassin and Muris 2005;Jay et al. 2006), and cathartic (Wajnryb 2005;Pinker 2007;Dynel 2012), it can also convey credibility (Rassin and Van der Heijden 2005), signal levity and intensify humor (Beers Fägersten 2012;Jay 1999;Norrick 2012), index intimacy and solidarity (Daly et al. 2004;Stapleton 2003Stapleton , 2010, and even facilitate professional interaction (Baruch and Jenkins 2007). The recent publication of Adams' (2016) In Praise of Profanity and Byrne's (2017), Swearing Is Good for You: The Amazing Science of Bad Language confirms an ever more overt appreciation of the benefits of swearing. ...
Swearing has traditionally been associated with spoken language; however, swear words are appearing more often in print and, notably, explicitly featured in commercial products. In this paper, we consider this development an example of the commodification of swear words, or ‘swear words for sale’. Our analyses of English-language swear word products show that the taboo nature of swear words is exploited and capitalized upon for commercial gain. We argue that swear word commodities trade on sociolinguistically incongruous aspects of swear word usage, increasing salability of the swear word products by targeting specific demographics. Specifically, we analyze (1) women’s apparel and accessories, (2) domestic items and home décor, and (3) children’s products for adults or articles targeting parents of young children. The study concludes with a discussion of whether the popularization of swearing via such commodification may ultimately result in a loss of distinctiveness and devaluation.
... This is also consistent with empirical evidence suggesting that people who express themselves in a socially undesirable manner are ironically judged to be more sincere. For instance, while swearing is considered rude and even immoral (Jay, 2009), witnesses who use more swear words are considered more credible (Rassin & Van Der Heijden, 2005). Moreover, while politically incorrect language may be considered disrespectful to certain subgroups of the population, people employing it are perceived as more authentic (Rosenblum et al., 2019). ...
Evaluating other people’s sincerity is a ubiquitous and important part of social interactions. Fourteen experiments (total N = 7565; ten preregistered; eleven in the main paper, three in the SOM; with U.S. American and British members of the public, and French students) show that response speed is an important cue on which people base their sincerity inferences. Specifically, people systematically judged slower (vs. faster) responses as less sincere for a range of scenarios from trivial daily conversations to high stakes situations such as police interrogations. Our findings suggest that this is because slower responses are perceived to be the result of the responder suppressing automatic, truthful thoughts, and fabricating a novel answer. People also seem to have a rich lay theory of response speed, which takes into account a variety of situational factors. For instance, the effect of response delay on perceived sincerity is smaller if the response is socially undesirable, or if it can be attributed to mental effort. Finally, we showed that explicit instructions to ignore response speed can reduce the effect of response speed on judgments on sincerity. Our findings not only help ascertain the role of response speed in interpersonal inference making processes, but also carry important practical implication. In particular, the present study highlights the potential effects that may be observed in judicial settings, since the response speed of innocent suspects may mislead people to judge them as insincere and hence guilty.
... However, prior work has demonstrated that obscenity can increase the persuasiveness of a speech and perceived speaker intensity (Scherer and Sagarin 2006). Also, people perceive testimonies containing swear words as more credible (Rassin and Heijden 2005). Most relevant to the current work, profanity use is positively associated with honesty (Feldman et al. 2017). ...
This research explores the effects of profanity on perceptions of online reviews’ usefulness. Based on the prior research that described asymmetric attribution effects, we predict that when consumers see profanity in an online review, their reactions differ depending on the valence of the review. Specifically, when profanity is used in a negative review, it should reduce review usefulness because of decreased perceived reviewer objectivity. Among positive reviews, profanity increases review usefulness through greater perceived reviewer credibility. Through analysis of Yelp data, we show that the effect of profanity on usefulness depends on review valence. Experimentally, we demonstrate the opposing mediating effects of perceived objectivity and credibility on the usefulness of the review.
... When asked why the students sometimes use "curse words" during the classroom session they simply stated the fact that they do not even realise it. As with Rassin & Van Der Heijden (2007) and Johnson & Lewis (2010) in combination with the results of our data analysis it was concluded that a healthy amount of cursing can be tolerated if not directed against others. Psycholinguists have simply remarked that "taboo words communicate emotional information more effectively than non-taboo words" and allow us to vent anger without getting physical (Jay & Janschewitz, 2010). ...
Research has shown the educational benefits of using the video game Minecraft in areas such as sciences and educational purposes as a teaching tool to transfer knowledge. Most studies, however, address the issue from an external perspective, rather than a student-centred perspective by evaluation from the researchers’ or teachers’ perspectives. This leads to a gap of data from the participants’ perspective and its usage in education. Those studies discuss how Minecraft is used as a simple teaching tool by filling it with content. Likewise, little research has studied in detail about the pedagogical designs of the virtual learning environments, or the design of the content within the game. This study aims at examining how the chosen content design and playability of the online learning environments influence the formal and informal learning outcome of a student in Minecraft. It looks at challenges faced by teachers and students by using those designs as a tool for transferring knowledge and how those challenges are dealt with during the study. In addition, the “Steinbeiß-Ruotsalainen Model for Formal, Non-Formal and Informal Learning with Minecraft” will be introduced and validated. In order to do so, a design-based research project was carried out, including six face-to-face interventions. 16 students participated in those interventions and had the opportunity to access to the online content 24 hours a day over a time period of three months. The presented data was collected through observations, video data, interviews and a survey. Based on the results of the study, the research showed that gamified designed learning environments in Minecraft benefit informal and formal learning experiences. It was observed that the designed reward-based learning environments can function as a motivational tool during the formal and informal learning phases. The introduced “teacher as an online facilitator” can support the learning outcome during formal and informal learning phases in Minecraft. It was concluded that spatially divided designs for learning environments can benefit formal learning, and that designing a learning environment by simply providing content can benefit informal learning. Designs facilitating an online society in Minecraft can create opportunities to establish social connections, and self-regulated learning benefits the learning outcome. It was observed that children need time to adapt to newly designed learning environments in Minecraft, and those with previous gaming experience do not necessarily benefit more than others. Clear rules on the Minecraft-server are needed to be implemented in order to maintain a successful learning environment. By linking theory and research results it was concluded that the “Steinbeiß-Ruotsalainen Model” can be used as a cornerstone for designing educational content in the game and for further research attempts in Minecraft based on design-based research.
... Swearing has rarely been investigated in the management literature, either psychologically or neurologically (see, respectively, Rassin and van der Heijden, 2005;Van Lancker and Cummings, 1999), although some work has been done on swearing as a social phenomenon (Baruch and Jenkins, 2007). Swearing is a form of workplace incivility because it violates the "respect" criterion of fairness in interpersonal treatment (Penney and Spector, 2005). ...
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the use and misuse of swearing in the workplace.
Design/methodology/approach
Using a qualitative methodology, the authors interviewed 52 lawyers, medical doctors and business executives in the UK, France and the USA.
Findings
In contrast to much of the incivility and social norms literatures, the authors find that male and female business executives, lawyers and doctors of all ages admit to swearing. Further, swearing can lead to positive outcomes at the individual, interpersonal and group levels, including stress-relief, communication-enrichment and socialization-enhancement.
Research limitations/implications
An implication for future scholarship is that “thinking out of the box” when exploring emotion-related issues can lead to new insights.
Practical implications
Practical implications include reconsidering and tolerating incivility under certain conditions.
Originality/value
The authors identified a case in which a negative phenomenon reveals counter-intuitive yet insightful results.
... Swearing has rarely been investigated in the management literature, either psychologically or neurologically (see, respectively, Rassin and van der Heijden, 2005;Van Lancker and Cummings, 1999), although some work has been done on swearing as a social phenomenon (Baruch and Jenkins, 2007). Swearing is a form of workplace incivility because it violates the "respect" criterion of fairness in interpersonal treatment (Penney and Spector, 2005). ...
In this study we aim to explore the use and misuse of language at the work, focusing on the practice of swearing. Using qualitative research method, we interviewed 30 professionals and executives in the UK and France. Our findings indicated, in contrast to conventional thinking, that swearing can lead to positive outcomes and can be useful within certain contexts. The implications for scholarship is the ‘thinking out of the box’ when exploring negative phenomena, whereas for executives it calls for openness and tolerance. The originality of the study stems from its approach and the meaning of its counter-intuitive results, where a negative behavior can lead to positive outcomes.
... Because deceivers tend to suppress reactions, we expect that truth tellers will display more felt emotion. On the other hand, we anticipate that deceivers will use more swear words because instances of swearing can be perceived as more credible [36]. Thus, deceivers may include swear words as a way to appear to be emotionally connected to an incident while suppressing their true emotions. ...
This study is a successful proof of concept of using automated text analysis to accurately classify transcribed 911 homicide calls according to their veracity. Fifty matched, caller-side transcripts were labeled as truthful or deceptive based on the subsequent adjudication of the cases. We mined the transcripts and analyzed a set of linguistic features supported by deception theories. Our results suggest that truthful callers display more negative emotion and anxiety and provide more details for emergency workers to respond to the call. On the other hand, deceivers attempt to suppress verbal responses by using more negation and assent words. Using these features as input variables, we trained and tested several machine-learning classification algorithms and compared the results with the output from a statistical classification technique, discriminant analysis. The overall performance of the classification techniques was as high as 84% for the cross-validated set. The promising results of this study illustrate the potential of using automated linguistic analyses in crime investigations.
... For example, measures of quantity have included assessment of the number of words/clauses/sentences produced, speech rate, length of individual words produced, and number of words from particular grammatical categories such as noun or verb (e.g., Burgoon & Qin, 2006;Sporer & Schwandt, 2006). Other language behaviors that have been investigated include expressivity (e.g., Rassin & Van Der Heijden, 2005); affect (e.g., Bond & Lee, 2005;Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, & Richards, 2003); and causation (e.g., Hancock, Curry, Goorha, & Woodworth, 2008); as well as diversity, redundancy, informality, and specificity (e.g., Zhou, Burgoon, Nunamaker, & Twitchell, 2004). ...
Lying is a deliberate attempt to transmit messages that mislead others. Analysis of language behaviors holds great promise as an objective method of detecting deception. The current study reports on the frequency of use and acoustic nature of “um” and “like” during laboratory-elicited lying versus truth-telling. Results obtained using a within-participants false opinion paradigm showed that instances of “um” occur less frequently and are of shorter duration during lying compared to truth-telling. There were no significant differences in relation to “like.” These findings contribute to our understanding of the linguistic markers of deception behavior. They also assist in our understanding of the role of “um” in communication more generally. Our results suggest that “um” may not be accurately conceptualized as a filled pause/hesitation or speech disfluency/error whose increased usage coincides with increased cognitive load or increased arousal during lying. It may instead carry a lexical status similar to interjections and form an important part of authentic, effortless communication, which is somewhat lacking during lying.
... Perhaps then, people swear even though they realise that swearing will not bring them much closer to their goal. Interestingly however, a recent study by Rassin and Van der Heijden (2004) delivered results suggesting that the use of swearwords does increase the perceived credibility of statements made by both alleged perpetrators and victims of crimes. Hence, under specific circumstances swearing seems to be effective in strengthening oneÕs argument. ...
The use of swearwords is a considerable societal phenomenon. Whereas swearing is unacceptable and forbidden under some circumstances, it is quite common and even popular in others. Although some scientific attention has been directed at the content of swearwords, virtually nothing is known about people’s reasons to swear, or about the (perceived) efficacy of swearing. In the present study, 72 female undergraduate students completed several questionnaires pertaining to swearing, aggression, and life satisfaction. It was found that respondents reported to swear quite regularly, that the expression of negative emotions was the most prominent reason to swear, and that respondents realised that swearing is not a very fruitful reaction. Furthermore, while swearing was associated with various other forms of aggression, it was not correlated with (lack of) life satisfaction.
... To date, researchers have investigated a wide range of language behaviours in both spoken and written output including measures of quantity, complexity, uncertainty, nonimmediacy, expressivity, diversity, redundancy, informality, specificity, causation and affect (e.g., see Bond & Lee, 2005;DePaulo, Lindsay, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton & Cooper, 2003;Newman, Pennebaker, Berry & Richards, 2003;Rassin & Van Der Heijden, 2005;Sporer & Schwandt, 2006;Zhou, Burgoon, Nunamaker & Twitchell, 2004;Vrij, Edward, Roberts & Bull, 2000;. The results of studies that have examined multiple linguistic cues are impressive and some studies have demonstrated deception detection rates of 67% which is significantly better than the chance levels obtained by human lie detectors (e.g., Newman et al., 2003). ...
Lying is a deliberate attempt to transmit messages that mislead others. Here, we examined the frequency of use of the so-called filler word 'um' during lying versus truth-telling in low-stakes laboratory-elicited lies (Study 1) and also in high-stakes real-life lies (Study 2). Results from a within-subjects false opinion paradigm showed that instances of 'um' occur less frequently during lying compared to truth-telling. Converging evidence was provided upon examining the lies of a convicted murderer. These results contribute to our understanding of linguistic markers of deception behaviour. More generally, they assist in our understanding of the role of utterances such as 'um' in communication. Utterances such as 'um' may not be accurately conceptualised as filled pauses/hesitations or speech disfluencies/errors whose increased usage coincides with increased cognitive load or increased arousal. Rather, they may carry a lexical status similar to interjections and form an important part of authentic, natural communication -that is somewhat lacking during lying.
Swearing, or using taboo language with the potential to offend, has been shown to improve physical performance during short and intense tasks requiring strength and power development. While consistent ergogenic effects of swearing have been observed across studies, the mechanisms by which swearing impacts physical performance are not fully clear. Swearing has been shown to modulate physiological (i.e., heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance), psychological (i.e., state disinhibition), and nociceptive (i.e., pain threshold, pain tolerance, pain perception) responses, thus making it plausible that these mechanisms allow swearing to positively impact physical performance. A variety of dosages of swearing (i.e., word used, intensity, frequency, quantity) have been reported to improve physical performance. Although habituation to the positive physical performance effects of swearing has not been explored formally through empirical research, habituation to swearing has been observed in other contexts. From a practical application standpoint, swearing represents a low-risk, effective, and inexpensive intervention that has the potential to acutely improve physical performance although the taboo nature of swearing may limit its utility in real-world situations. The purpose of the following review is to provide an overview of available evidence on swearing and physical performance and discuss likely underlying mechanisms. Exploration of different swearing approaches and habituation will also be highlighted and suggestions for future research will be discussed, to more comprehensively understand if swearing can be strategically used for performance enhancement.
The use of taboo words represents one of the most common and arguably universal linguistic behaviors, fulfilling a wide range of psychological and social functions. However, in the scientific literature, taboo language is poorly characterized, and how it is realized in different languages and populations remains largely unexplored. Here we provide a database of taboo words, collected from different linguistic communities (Study 1, N = 1046), along with their speaker-centered semantic characterization (Study 2, N = 455 for each of six rating dimensions), covering 13 languages and 17 countries from all five permanently inhabited continents. Our results show that, in all languages, taboo words are mainly characterized by extremely low valence and high arousal, and very low written frequency. However, a significant amount of cross-country variability in words’ tabooness and offensiveness proves the importance of community-specific sociocultural knowledge in the study of taboo language.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13428-024-02376-6.
Abstract
This article introduces broad strands of research on swearing as a foundation for an interpersonal pragmatics (IP) approach to the nature and effects of swearing in interaction and relationships. The main tenets of interpersonal pragmatics are presented, and swearing as a distinct research focus within IP is outlined. The article invokes pragmatic perspectives in addressing both negative and positive functions of swearing. The central focus on IP is developed by considering the mutual interplay between language and relationships in swearing activity. With respect to communicative context, it is noted that swearing both emerges within interpersonal relationships, and simultaneously provides a context for different types of interpersonal relationships to unfold (endogenous vs. exogenous IP perspectives).
By way of introducing the special issue on swearing and interpersonal pragmatics and the constituent articles, it asserts the need to account for swearing as an interpersonal pragmatic strategy and to analyse the causes and effects of swearing in different contexts. The article concludes with a discussion of future research directions, including, in particular, swearing in mediated settings.
Highlights
Swearing is discursively distinctive and psychologically powerful.
Interpersonal functions of swearing highlight mutual effects of language and relationships.
Positive and negative functions of swearing work in tandem to maintain swearing as highly nuanced and adaptable.
Interpersonal pragmatics emerges as a central strand of present and future swearing research.
Despite how damaging the consequences of an inadequate translation of swearwords might be, little attention has been paid to insults, in both academic research and interpreting training. The mistranslation of an insult can affect how the police officer perceives the severity of the punishable offence and makes a judgment about what kind of action is appropriate. This study includes two experiments. First, an interpreting experiment was carried out with English–Spanish interpreting students (N = 36), including the translation of 30 insults in three different contexts. The second task aimed to find how each of the insults was comparable across both languages, according to native speakers’ perceptions. We elicited native speakers’ ratings for offensiveness of each of these lexical items (British N = 204 and Spanish N = 178). The results show variation in the degree of offensiveness by Spanish and British English speakers. We argue that learning insults needs to become part of interpreting training in legal contexts. This study aims to contribute to this interdisciplinary area, with one of the practical goals being the application of our results in professional training.
Introduction: Swearing fulfils positive functions including benefitting pain relief and physical strength. Here we present two experiments assessing a possible psychological mechanism, increased state disinhibition, for the effect of swearing on physical strength. Method: Two repeated measures experiments were carried out with sample sizes N=56, and N=118. Both included measures of physical performance assessing, respectively, grip and arm strength, and both included the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) to measure risky behaviour. Experiment 2, which was pre-registered, additionally assessed flow, emotion including humour, distraction including novelty, self-confidence and anxiety. Results: Experiments 1 and 2 found that repeating a swear word benefitted physical strength and increased risky behaviour, but risky behaviour did not mediate the strength effect. Experiment 2 found that repeating a swear word increased flow, positive emotion, humour and distraction and self-confidence. Humour mediated the effect of swearing on physical strength. Discussion: Consistent effects of swearing on physical strength indicate that this is a reliable effect. Swearing influenced several constructs related to state disinhibition including increased self-confidence. Humour appeared to mediate the effect of swearing on physical strength, consistent with a hot cognitions explanation of swearing-induced state disinhibition. However, as this mediation effect was part of an exploratory analysis, further pre-registered experimental research including validated measures of humour is required.
Swearing has been shown to affect hearers' perceptions of speakers. Existing studies show mixed effects. Some identify favourable perceptions, including: greater speaker informality , intensity, humour, and credibility. Others show negative outcomes, with swearers perceived as: less competent, intelligent, and trustworthy; and as more aggressive and socially inept than non-swearers. Most existing studies are based on experimental methodologies, typically using constructed data and directly eliciting evaluations. In this paper, using Discursive Psychology principles, I adopt a perspective that is closer to 'real world' processes of perception and evaluation. Specifically, I analyse online reader responses to news reports of a celebrity host's swearing during a televised awards event. Here, the data are unelicited, discursively formulated, and produced in response to a concrete swearing example. In the analysis, I examine the meaning frameworks through which the respondents evaluate swearing; and the types of perceptions that they form about the speaker, including his motivations for swearing and his personal characteristics. I demonstrate that: (a) evaluative categories are negotiated in different ways; and (b) evaluations are inextricably linked to existing representations of the speaker, as well as contextualised judgements and expectations. The study highlights the role of socio-pragmatic concerns in swearing and speaker evaluation.
This research discussed about, the use of swear words uttered by PewDiePie’s in his Youtube Videos which aimed to show the types of swear word found in the PewDiePie’s videos, and to show the dominant types of swear words based on the meaning and meaningless swearing. This research was descriptive qualitative method. The object of the study were five videos from Pewdiepie’s Youtube channel which collected based on most viewed videos on his Youtube channel. The researcher used note taking as the instruments in order to get the valid data. The findings showed that there were five types of swear words that used in PewDiePie’s videos those were: 14 data of Dysphemistics, 38 data of Idiomatically, 1 data of Abusively, 24 data of Emphatically, 27 data of Carthartically. The researcher conclude that the dominant type of swearing that Pewdiepie used in his videos is SW2 which does not have any intrinsic meaning at all (categorized as Emphatic swearing and Idiomatic swearing) rather it is merely a word that could express the feeling towards other people without offend someone’s pride.AbstrakPenelitian ini membahas tentang, penggunaan kata-kata umpatan yang diucapkan oleh PewDiePie dalam Video Youtube-nya yang bertujuan untuk menunjukkan jenis kata umpatan yang ditemukan dalam video PewDiePie, dan untuk menunjukkan tipe kata umpatan yang dominan berdasarkan makna dan sumpah tanpa arti. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif. Objek penelitian ini adalah lima video dari saluran Youtube Pewdiepie yang dikumpulkan berdasarkan video yang paling banyak dilihat di saluran Youtube-nya. Peneliti menggunakan catatan sebagai instrumen untuk mendapatkan data yang valid. Temuan menunjukkan bahwa ada lima jenis kata umpatan yang digunakan dalam video PewDiePie yaitu: 14 data Dysphemistics, 38 data Idiomatically, 1 data Abusively, 24 data secara emosional, 27 data Cartrama. Peneliti menyimpulkan bahwa jenis sumpah yang dominan yang digunakan Pewdiepie dalam videonya adalah SW2 yang sama sekali tidak memiliki makna intrinsik (dikategorikan sebagai sumpah Emphatic dan sumpah Idiomatik), melainkan hanya sebuah kata yang bisa mengungkapkan perasaan terhadap orang lain tanpa menyinggung kebanggaan seseorang.
There are two conflicting perspectives regarding the relationship between profanity and dishonesty. These two forms of norm-violating behavior share common causes and are often considered to be positively related. On the other hand, however, profanity is often used to express one’s genuine feelings and could therefore be negatively related to dishonesty. In three studies, we explored the relationship between profanity and honesty. We examined profanity and honesty first with profanity behavior and lying on a scale in the lab (Study 1; N = 276), then with a linguistic analysis of real-life social interactions on Facebook (Study 2; N = 73,789), and finally with profanity and integrity indexes for the aggregate level of U.S. states (Study 3; N = 50 states). We found a consistent positive relationship between profanity and honesty; profanity was associated with less lying and deception at the individual level and with higher integrity at the society level.
The current research examined the effects of a speaker's ethnicity (Black: White), gender (M: F), and type of profanity (a-hole: f-word: n-word) on perceived offensiveness of the profanity. One-hundred and thirty four participants were solicited from a southern university. Participants were randomly assigned to an ethnicity condition with gender and profanity conditions as within-subjects factors. Participants read vivid scenarios that depicted a frustrating experience in a store that resulted in a patron uttering a profanity, wherein the ethnicity, gender, and profanity uttered varied. Following each scenario, participants rated how offensive the situation was and how often the participant used the profanity depicted in the scenario. A 2 × 2 × 3 mixed-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a significant effect for profanity type and an interaction between ethnicity and profanity type. Consistent with the a priori hypotheses, Whites using the ethnic slur (n-word) were rated significantly more offensive than when used by Blacks, who in turned were perceived as being more offensive than Whites when using non-ethnic profanities. Analyses also revealed that the ethnic slur (n-word) was reported to be spoken less frequently and rated as more offensive when compared to non-ethnic epithets.
Swearing is a frequent language form in a number of contexts, including the work setting. This investigation extends research on expectancy violations theory as an explanation for how people perceive swearing by examining violation valence. Study 1 concludes that violation valence is positively related to perceptions of message appropriateness and effectiveness and to perceptions of the speaker. Study 2 replicates these findings using a national sample. These results provide support for the role of expectancy violations in swearing and show that swearing is not always perceived as negative in work settings.
Three experiments explored the effects of rehearsal and the passage of time on qualitative characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined complex events. Subjects thought or talked about events, focusing on either the perceptual (e.g., colors, sounds) or apperceptive (e.g., thoughts, feelings) aspects of the events (Experiment 1). Thinking about apperceptive aspects of events decreased the salience of context and sensory characteristics of memories and made memories for perceived and imagined events seem more similar in the subjective amounts of thoughts and feelings included in the memories. When the aspects of events subjects thought about were unspecified, thinking about events primarily affected rated clarity (Experiment 2). The clarity of imagined events was more affected than was the clarity of perceived events by whether the memories had been rated previously (Experiments 1 & 3). Over 24 hrs, clarity and sensory ratings decreased more for imagined than for perceived events (Experiment 3). Implications for reality monitoring (M. K. Johnson and C. L. Raye [see PA, Vol 65:6694]) are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Severe aphasia, adult left hemispherectomy, Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (GTS), and other neurological disorders have in common an increased use of swearwords. There are shared linguistic features in common across these language behaviors, as well as important differences. We explore the nature of swearing in normal human communication, and then compare the clinical presentations of selectively preserved, impaired and augmented swearing. These neurolinguistic observations, considered along with related neuroanatomical and neurochemical information, provide the basis for considering the neurobiological foundation of various types of swearing behaviors.
Two studies explored potential bases for reality monitoring (Johnson & Raye, 1981) of naturally occurring autobiographical events. In Study 1, subjects rated phenomenal characteristics of recent and childhood memories. Compared with imagined events, perceived events were given higher ratings on several characteristics, including perceptual information, contextual information, and supporting memories. This was especially true for recent memories. In Study 2, subjects described how they knew autobiographical events had (or had not) happened. For perceived events, subjects were likely to mention perceptual and contextual details of the memory and to refer to other supporting memories. For imagined events, subjects were likely to engage in reasoning based on prior knowledge. The results are consistent with the idea that reality monitoring draws on differences in qualitative characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined events (Johnson & Raye, 1981) and augment findings from more controlled laboratory studies of complex events (Johnson & Suengas, in press; Suengas & Johnson, 1988).
A framework for understanding source monitoring and relevant empirical evidence is described, and several related phenomena are discussed: old-new recognition, indirect tests, eyewitness testimony, misattributed familiarity, cryptomnesia, and incorporation of fiction into fact. Disruptions in source monitoring (e.g., from confabulation, amnesia, and aging) and the brain regions that are involved are also considered, and source monitoring within a general memory architecture is discussed. It is argued that source monitoring is based on qualities of experience resulting from combinations of perceptual and reflective processes, usually requires relatively differentiated phenomenal experience, and involves attributions varying in deliberateness. These judgments evaluate information according to flexible criteria and are subject to error and disruption. Furthermore, diencephalic and temporal regions may play different roles in source monitoring than do frontal regions of the brain.
The Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) technique was developed to distinguish children's truthful from fabricated allegations. Research results suggest some use for the procedure, but many important theoretical and empirical issues remain unresolved, including wide differences in the apparent usefulness of individual CBCA criteria, inconsistencies in the number of criteria used, and the absence of decision rules for evaluating an individual child. Other issues include the effect of the child's age and cultural background, motivation to lie, being coached to lie, and belief in the validity of a false memory. Although the CBCA technique shows some promise in enabling raters to differentiate true from false statements, the authors conclude that the presentation of expert testimony derived from CBCA analyses of an individual child would be premature and unwarranted.
Three experiments explored the effects of rehearsal and the passage of time on qualitative characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined complex events. Subjects thought or talked about events, focusing on either the perceptual (e.g., colors, sounds) or apperceptive (e.g., thoughts, feelings) aspects of the events (Experiment 1). Thinking about apperceptive aspects of events decreased the salience of context and sensory characteristics of memories and made memories for perceived and imagined events seem more similar in the subjective amounts of thoughts and feelings included in the memories. When the aspects of events subjects thought about were unspecified, thinking about events primarily affected rated clarity (Experiment 2). The clarity of imagined events was more affected than was the clarity of perceived events by whether the memories had been rated previously (Experiments 1 & 3). Over 24 hr, clarity and sensory ratings decreased more for imagined than for perceived events (Experiment 3). Implications for reality monitoring (Johnson & Raye, 1981) are discussed.
Both classical anthropological evidence and recent psychological research suggest the possibility that obscene language is both a linguistic universal and one of man's most frequent types of linguistic expression. The report here is of the initial results of what will be a comprehensive research project concerned with the use, function, and personal-cultural-linguistic significance of obscene language within English and in a variety of other languages. In the present study of a college student sample, an empirically derived set of linguistic obscenities was obtained, the effects of sex and production mode upon the quantity of production were assessed, and the obtained obscenities were categorized with respect to the denotative domains of experience to which they referred. In addition, a questionnaire survey of attitudes toward and use of obscenity was taken among the producing Ss. It was found that while production mode (oral vs. written) did not affect the quantity of obscenity produced, males significantly outproduced females. Furthermore, the obtained obscenities were meaningly classifiable into a rather limited number of categories of social-psychological experience. Those categories containing the most exemplars seemed to reflect certain cultural attitudes toward the domains of experience represented by these categories. Finally, general analyses of questionnaire responses revealed that Ss (a) generally used obscenity freely, although they would limit usage around children and their own parents; (b) indicated restrictive reactions—particularly punishment—on the part of their parents when Ss used obscenity during their upbringing; and (c) gave the reason of emotional release as their primary motivation for using obscene language. Implications of the present research for future investigation—particularly across languages—were discussed.
The Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) technique was developed to distinguish children's truthful from fabricated allegations. Research results suggest some use for the procedure, but many important theoretical and empirical issues remain unresolved, including wide differences in the apparent usefulness of individual CBCA criteria, inconsistencies in the number of criteria used, and the absence of decision rules for evaluating an individual child. Other issues include the effect of the child's age and cultural background, motivation to lie, being coached to lie, and belief in the validity of a false memory. Although the CBCA technique shows some promise in enabling raters to differentiate true from false statements, the authors conclude that the presentation of expert testimony derived from CBCA analyses of an individual child would be premature and unwarranted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
a description of statement analysis by means of content (reality) criteria, a procedure that is called criteria-based statement analysis
content criteria reflect specific features that differentiate truthful from invented testimonies (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
have recently been proposed as truth indicators (see Vrij, 2000) Of course, it is worthwhile investigating whether swearwords can be added to the list of verbal credibility criteria. Meanwhile, it seems to be wise Á
- Suengas
- Johnson
Suengas & Johnson, 1988) have recently been proposed as truth indicators (see Vrij, 2000). Of course, it is worthwhile investigating whether swearwords can be added to the list of verbal credibility criteria. Meanwhile, it seems to be wise Á/at least for suspects and
The use of taboo words by psychiatric ward personnel. Psychiatry, 34 , 309 Á/321
- G E Gallahorn
- F E Inbau
- J E Reid
- J P Buckley
- B C Jayne
Gallahorn, G. E. (1971). The use of taboo words by psychiatric ward personnel. Psychiatry, 34, 309 Á/321.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Gaithersburg,
MD: Aspen Publishers.
Evaluations of umpire performance and perceptions of appropriate behavior toward umpires
- M K Johnson
- S Hashtroudi
- D S Lindsay
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3Á/28.
Rainey, D. W., & Schweickert, G. (1991). Evaluations of umpire performance and perceptions of appropriate
behavior toward umpires. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 66Á/77.
Fans' evaluations of major league baseball umpires' performances and perceptions of appropriate behavior toward umpires
- D W Rainey
- G Schweickert
- V Granito
- J Pullella
Rainey, D. W., Schweickert, G., Granito, V., & Pullella, J. (1990). Fans' evaluations of major league baseball
umpires' performances and perceptions of appropriate behavior toward umpires. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13,
122 Á/129.
Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice
- A Vrij
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and implications for professional practice. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.