ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

An experimental study investigated the effect of politicians’ profanity and gender on their perceived and actual persuasiveness. 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.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Swearing in Political Discourse: Why Vulgarity Works
Nicoletta Cavazza1, Margherita Guidetti1
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/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.
language vulgarity, persuasion, political communication, social judgment, language informality.
1Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia
Corresponding author:
Nicoletta Cavazza, Università di Modena-Reggio Emilia, via Allegri 9, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy.
In the last Italian political election (2013) the Five Stars Movement became unexpectedly the
second most voted party at its first appearance on the electoral scene. Its leader, the former
comedian Beppe Grillo based his campaign exclusively on blog posts and monologue performances
in city squares and, for the first time in the Italian political arena, delivered messages replete with
swear words (Bordignon & Ceccarini, 2013).
The effects of language on impression formation and decision making in the political field
are widely studied. In particular, much attention has been devoted to the effects of attacks, outrages
and incivilities (i.e., negative campaign). However, little is known about the effect produced by
simply filling the discourse with swear words without necessarily attacking the adversary. The
present investigation explored the consequences of including swear words in political messages, in
terms of impression of the source and persuasiveness.
How do people perceive somebody swearing? Research findings are somewhat
controversial. Some studies have shown that swearers are perceived as untrustworthy, incompetent
and lowly sociable (Bostrom, Baseheart, & Rossiter, 1973; Hamilton, 1989; Paradise, Cohl, &
Zweig, 1980). However, Scherer and Sagarin (2006) failed to find any influence of profanity on
source credibility. Drawing on expectancy violation theory (Burgoon, 1993), Johnson and
colleagues (Johnson & Lewis, 2010; Johnson, 2012) hypothesized that swearing can be perceived
positively, neutrally or negatively. Indeed, they found that only negative expectancy violations had
detrimental consequences over perception of the speaker and of message effectiveness, whereas
when swearing was considered as a positive surprise the opposite was observed.
In order to study the effects of message vulgarity we have to individuate which functions
swearing fulfill (Jay, 2000). People curse mainly because profanity helps express mood, aggressive
urge, dominance, etc. (e.g., Fine & Johnson, 1984; Jay, 2009). In addition, nasty words function as
rhetoric tools used by the source in order to intensify the discourse, and to define an informal and
friendly relationship with the receiver, thus reinforcing social connections (Wajnryb, 2005).
However, the empirical evidence of vulgarity rhetorical and social functions is rare. Bostrom
et al. (1973) exposed participants to a videotaped interview including either a religious, excretory,
or sexual swear word, or to the same interview devoid of profanity. 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). Based on reinforcement expectancy theory (Bradac, Bowers, & Courtright, 1980), the
authors hypothesized that language intensity would affect source evaluation that in turn would
affect attitude change. In this study, the simple presence of a swear word actually improved the
receivers’ attitude about the topic. The effect was partially mediated by perception of language
intensity, whereas swearing did not affect source credibility. Thus, although the effect of profanity
in terms of perception of the speaker is controversial, there is evidence of its positive effect in terms
of persuasiveness, mediated by language intensity.
Therefore, we can speculate that, beyond the expressive function, people curse also because
they have learned from experience that swear words may reinforce message effectiveness. This is
not to say that people are aware of this persuasive effect, but they may have automatized the
association between swearing and positive outcomes.
The results of the recent Italian election might be an example of the ability of vulgar
messages to convey consensus. However, to the best of our knowledge, no research study has
focused attention on the specificity of the persuasive communication in the political domain.
This would be an important test because political communication, compared to commercial
or other communicative domains, is characterized by the centrality of the source. Actually, the
candidate is the “product to sell”, and the crucial persuasive effect is not about influencing the
audience attitude towards some issues discussed in a message, but convincing them to support the
source of the message in case of election. Thus, previous findings cannot be simply generalized to
political communication in which we can expect that source evaluation would play a stronger role
in respect to that observed by Scherer and Sagarin (2006).
Furthermore, as we have seen, a bad impression is only realized when swear words induce a
negative surprise, and can be favorable instead if the surprise is positive (Johnson, 2012). Since
research in the field of political communication stresses the efficacy for a candidate of being
perceived as an “everyday man” (Barisione, 2009), a positive surprise might occur through
perception of informality. As most swearing occurs in friendly conversation (Jay & Janschewitz,
2008), a proportion of mediation between message vulgarity and its persuasiveness should be due to
the perception of language informality, which in turn should induce a positive impression about the
Finally, since men are generally observed to curse more than women (Foote & Woodward,
1973; Ginsburg, Ogletree, & Silakowski, 2003; but see Bayand & Krishnayya, 2001), and gender
stereotypes are also reflected in the appropriateness of language to be used by men and women, we
will control whether source’s gender moderates the effect of vulgarity on impression about the
candidate and voting intention.
The Present Experiment
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of swearing on the influence process in the
political domain. To this end, we examined the combined effect of politicians’ use of swear words
and gender on perception of language intensity and informality, impression about the source and
self-reported likelihood of voting for that candidate (Hp1). Given the scarcity of previous evidence
about gender differences in vulgarity effects, we cannot formulate a hypothesis about the
moderating role of gender: we included this variable to explore whether vulgarity works better for
either male or female source, or for both.
In addition, drawing on Bradac et al. (1980), we expected that vulgarity would increase
perception of language informality, as well as language intensity, that in turn would positively
affect the evaluation of the source and finally the behavioral intention (i.e., two step model; Hp2).
Then, in order to investigate whether people are aware of the expected effect of profanity,
we also checked if receivers perceived a vulgar political message as more/less persuasive in respect
to a neutral one.
One hundred and ten Italian adults (58.4% females) aged 20-68 years (M = 29.46, SD = 9.72) were
recruited through snowball sampling. They were highly educated (40%), predominantly
progressives (50.5% placed themselves on the left side of the 10-step left-right dimension), and
mostly workers (47.5%) and students (41.6%). Participants were asked to complete an online
questionnaire about political communication.
Design and Procedure
Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (vulgar vs. neutral message) × 2
(source’s gender) between-subjects factorial design. After having answered three questions about
involvement in politics (Cronbach’s α = .85), participants read the following instruction: “Now,
imagine that in a few months a local election will be held in your town. While exploring the web, in
order to collect information about the candidates, you find the following post on the blog of one of
them.” They were then invited to read carefully a fictitious 15-lines blog post allegedly written by
the candidate her/himself dealing with the issue of unemployment. A pre-test confirmed that
receivers did not systematically associate the post content to left- or right-wing rhetoric or issue
ownership. The name of the blogger was manipulated as to refer either to a man or to a woman
(Mario vs. Maria Gambettini). The post was the same in the four conditions except for two swear
expressions (“a situation that pissed off everyone” and “is up shit creek”) appearing only in the
vulgarity conditions, as opposed to the neutral expressions (“a situation that worries everyone” and
“is in a tragic situation” included in the control condition.
Then participants answered a series of questions about the perceived persuasiveness of the
piece, their impression about the candidate, their likelihood of voting for him/her, and their
evaluation of his/her language. Finally, they were asked to write down what they remember of the
post, reported their position in the left-right political spectrum and completed socio-demographic
Dependent Measures
Language Perception. A scale for the evaluation of language informality and intensity was
developed for this investigation. Participants had to say if each of 6 adjectives describes the post
language from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much. An exploratory factor analysis elicited two factors,
explaining 64.99% of the variance. Thus, two indexes were calculated: informality (as a mean of
three items: direct, explicit and formal, reversed score, Cronbach’s α = .79), and intensity (as a
mean of the other three items: enthusiastic, encouraging, and enjoyable, Cronbach’s α = .63). As a
manipulation check, participants were also asked to what extent the candidate’s language was
vulgar (same response scale).
Impression of the Source. Participants evaluated, on a 7-point response scale (see above),
how much they think each of six adjectives (sincere, reliable, dishonest, skilled, qualified, and
uninformed) describes the author of the blog post. The exploratory factor analysis elicited a one
factor solution accounting for 49.08% of the variance (negative adjectives reversed), thus we built a
source general impression index (Cronbach’s α = .75).
Likelihood of Voting for that Candidate. Two questions asked participants the likelihood
with which they would vote for the candidate if they were members of this town constituency: “If
you had to vote in this town election, how likely were you to vote for Mario/a Gambettini?” “What
is the probability that in the next election, Mario/a Gambettini would be your voted candidate?”
(range 1-7, r = .90).
Perceived Persuasiveness. Participants rated the message persuasiveness through four
adjectives (persuasive, efficacious, credible, convincing; Cronbach’s α = .90) on the same 7-point
Recollection of the Blog Post. Participants’ recollection of the post they read was coded as a
score ranging from 0 (no answer or very bad memory) to 4 (very good memory) by a judge blind of
the experimental conditions.
The effect of participants gender, education, involvement in politics and self-reported position on
the left-right political spectrum have been tested in all analyses; they did not yield any significant
main or interaction effects and therefore will not be presented.
Manipulation Check
The independent sample t-test performed on the perceived language vulgarity confirmed that
participants considered the message with the two swear words more vulgar (M = 4.24, SD = 2.11)
than those in the control condition (M = 1.37, SD = .71), t(106) = 9.48, p < .001.
Effects of Vulgarity and Gender of the Source
Table 1 reports descriptive statistics for our measures.
We first carried out a series of ANOVAs including the two independent variables
(candidate’s gender and vulgarity manipulation) on each dependent variable (Table 2).
The candidate’s gender, F(1,105) = 23.02 p < .001, η2p = .18, and the vulgarity
manipulation, F(1,105) = 87.52 p <.001, η2p = .45, main effects emerged on the perception of
language informality. Globally, the language was perceived as more informal when the message
was attributed to the female candidate than to the male one, and the vulgar message was perceived
as more informal than the control message. The interaction effect also emerged, F(1,105) = 6.02, p
= .016, η2p = .05, indicating that, though for both male and female candidates the vulgar message
was perceived more informal than the control message, the impact of swearing was greater when
the source was a man, F(1,54) = 69.48, p < .001, η2p = .56, rather than a woman, F(1,51) = 23.99, p
< .001, η2p = .32.
Regarding impression of the source, the main effects of candidate’s gender and vulgarity
manipulation as well as their interaction emerged. The female candidate inspired a better impression
as compared to the male candidate, F(1,106) = 46.51, p < .001, η2p = .30; furthermore, the vulgar
message globally induced a more positive impression about its author as compared to the control
one, F(1,106) = 12.62, p = .001, η2p = .11. However, the interaction effect, F(1,106) = 14.16, p <
.001, η2p = .12, revealed that the vulgar message induced a significantly better impression only in
the case of male candidate, t(55) = 5.03, p < .001, whereas when the politician was a woman the use
of swear words did not influence the judgment, t(51) = .154, p = .88.
Our independent variables did not influence participants’ perception of language intensity
and likelihood of voting for the candidate.
The same ANOVA performed on the message perceived persuasiveness yielded an
interaction effect, F(1,106)= 6.80, p = .01 2p = .06: The vulgar message authored by the man was
considered less persuasive than the neutral one, t(55)=2.03, p = .047, whereas in the case of a
female source this difference did not reach statistical significance, t(51) = 1.66 p = .10. In addition,
the woman’s message was perceived as more persuasive than the man’s only in the vulgar
condition, t(53) = 2.29, p = 0.3, but not in the control condition, t(53) = 1.38, p = .174.
Indirect Effect of Vulgarity on Voting Intention
Based on the results illustrated above and in order to test our hypothesis 2, we verified a two-step
model in which vulgar message induces perception of language informality1 that in turn favors a
good impression about the author that finally increases the likelihood of voting for the candidate. To
this end, we ran Model 6 of PROCESS, the SPSS Macro by Hayes (2013), setting 5000
bootstrapped samples. This analysis allows testing three indirect paths: the first includes only
informality of language as the intermediate factor, the second includes only impression about the
candidate as the intermediate factor, and the third include the complete sequence depicted in Figure
1. Vulgar message was coded 1 and compared to control condition (coded 0).
The only significant model is the one including the complete sequence of factors we
considered (indirect effect = .27, SE = .13; LLCI = .07; ULCI = .59). All the path coefficients in the
model are positive.
Finally, the ANOVA including our independent variables on participants’ recollection of the
post confirmed that the independent factors did not induce significant variations, neither alone nor
in interaction, in the recall of the message content. This rules out the possibility that the observed
path was due to the ability of swear words to focus receivers’ attention on message content.
The results of our study shed light on the process through which vulgarity embedded in a
public political speech, even though socially sanctioned, is able to positively affect receivers’
behavioral intention. In line with hypothesis 1, we showed that a candidate’s use of swear words in
a blog post, without heightening receivers’ attention, increased language perceived informality and
improved the impression about the source. The latter effect was particularly strong when the
candidate was a man, as the woman candidate was already evaluated more positively, irrespective
of her cursing. In addition, though the manipulation of the politician’s vulgarity did not directly
affect the likelihood of voting for him/her, we found that not only the impression about language,
but also the impression about the source played the role of intermediate factor. This is apparently
incongruent with the study by Scherer and Sagarin (2006), but it is worth noting that the present
study differs from it in two main aspects. First, in the Scherer and Sagarin paper, the persuasive
message was given in speech form, while in our experiment we used a (written) blog post.
Participants in the two situations may have formulated different inferences about the source
intentionality, as saying a swear word can come across as more impassioned than to write it in a
blog post. In the latter case, the author has time to think about the wording used, put the swear word
in the text and kept it in future edits. Thus, it may seem as a planned choice and that may have
induced the reader to make an internal attribution to the author.
Second, Scherer and Sagarin operationalized the persuasive effect as receivers’ final attitude
toward the message issue. However, in the political domain the crucial output is the receivers’
global propensity to support the candidate in case of election. This is why we chose to include a
variable closer to the behavior, such as the likelihood of voting for the candidate. This specificity of
the political domain makes the present contribution particularly valuable, as it provides a first
evidence that when (rephrasing Marshall McLuhan) the source is the message and language
informality is perceived as a positive surprise, swearing can be effective in gaining consensus.
Even though we are inclined to interpret our results in terms of strategic use of a rhetorical
device (i.e. 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. Therefore, the association between swearing and its
positive consequences may be automatic and unaware, thus contrasting with self-reported beliefs.
Still, there are some reasons to be cautious when interpreting the findings from this study.
First, the results are based on a single experiment in a single context. In line with expectancy
violation theory, we cannot generalize the persuasiveness of a vulgar message: We believe that our
results emerged from a context (a blog post) that allowed such language to be perceived as
appropriate. For example, such language is explicitly sanctioned when used by a politician in the
Parliament. Second, our vulgarity manipulation was relatively minor and the manipulation check
revealed that, even though a significant difference in terms of vulgarity was perceived between the
control and the experimental condition, our participants considered the message with the two swear
words a moderate vulgar communication. This could be due to the current high familiarity with this
kind of language. We followed previous experimental studies that included one or two swear words
as well (Bostrom et al. 1973, Johnson, 2012; Scherer and Sagarin, 2006), but we cannot exclude a
non-linear effect. Further research is needed to test if an even more vulgar communication would
instead decrease message effectiveness. Third, respondents were given limited information about a
ctitious politician and, participants did not know the party affiliation of the blog author. This may
have exaggerated the salience of the two swear words included in his/her message. In sum, future
research should study long-term effects of multiple vulgar messages in different contexts, beyond
our minimalistic experimental setting.
Notwithstanding its limitations, our study suggests that the appropriate use of swear words
by politicians actually works and highlights that it works through perceived language informality
that gets the politicians closer to people. In addition, the positive effect of cursing seems to apply to
the whole electorate, as this effect did not vary as a function of participants’ gender, education,
involvement in politics and self-reported position on the left-right political spectrum. These findings
outline the importance of studying the influence effect of vulgar language in order to acknowledge
that cursing should not to be seen only as an expressive behavior, since it also fulfills a strategic
communicative function. As such, our study extends the few previous results to the political field
where this has become an increasingly widespread practice.
We wish to express our gratitude to Chiara Gussoni for collecting the data, to the editor Howard
Gilles and the four anonymous reviewers for their constructive and detailed comments.
Authors’ Note
1As language intensity was not affected by message vulgarity, we did not include it in the
Barisione, M. (2009). Valence image and the standardisation of democratic political leadership.
Leadership, 5, 41-60.
Bayard, D., & Krishnayya, S. (2001). Gender, expletive use, and context: Male and female
expletive use in structured and unstructured conversation among New Zealand university
students. Women and Language, 24, 1-15.
Bordignon, F., & Ceccarini, L. (2013). Five stars and a cricket. Beppe Grillo shakes Italian politics.
South European Society and Politics, 4, 427-449.
Bostrom, R. N., Baseheart, J. R., & Rossiter, C. M. (1973), The effects of three types of profane
language in persuasive messages. Journal of Communication, 23, 461475.
Bradac, J. J., Bowers, J. W., & Courtright, J. A. (1980). Lexical variations in intensity, immediacy,
and diversity: An axiomatic theory and causal model. In R. N. St. Clair & H. Giles (Eds.),
The social and psychological contexts of language (pp. 193-223). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional
communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12, 30-48.
Fine, M. G., & Johnson, F. L. (1984). Female and male motives for using obscenity. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 3, 59-74.
Foote, R., & Woodward, J. (1973). A preliminary investigation of obscene language. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 83, 263-275.
Ginsburg, H. J., Ogletree, S. M., & Silakowski, T. D. (2003). Vulgar language: Review of sex
differences in usage, attributions, and pathologies. North American Journal of Psychology,
5, 105115.
Hamilton, M. A. (1989). Reactions to obscene language. Communication Research Reports, 6, 67-
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New
York: The Guilford Press.
Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. Amsterdam: John
Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4,
Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Journal of Politeness Research, 4,
Johnson, D. I. (2012). Swearing by peers in the work setting: Expectancy violation valence,
perceptions of message, and perceptions of speaker. Communication Studies, 63, 136-151.
Johnson, D. I., & Lewis, N. (2010). Perceptions of swearing in the work setting: An expectancy
violations theory perspective. Communication Reports, 23, 106-118.
Paradise, L. V., Cohl, B., & Zweig, J. (1980). Effects of profane language and physical
attractiveness on perceptions of counselor behavior. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27,
Rassin, E., & van der Heijden, S. (2005). Appearing credible?: Swearing helps! Psychology, Crime
and Law, 11, 177-182.
Scherer, C. R., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Indecent influence: The positive effects of obscenity on
persuasion. Social Influence, 1, 138-146.
Wajnryb, R. (2005). Expletive deleted: A good look at bad language. New York: Free Press.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Measures and Intercorrelations.
M (SD)
1. Language informality
2. Language intensity
3. Impression about the
4.00 (1.29)
4. Likelihood of voting
for that candidate
5. Perceived
3.76 (1.34)
Note: *p < .05 level; ***p < .001.
Table 2. Effects of Inclusion of Swear Words in a Political Message on Language Evaluation,
Impressions about the Author, Behavioral Intention, and Perceived Persuasiveness (means, standard
deviations in parenthesis).
Male politician
Female politician
Control condition
Control condition
5.17a (1.17)
2.71b (1.03)
5.65a (.93)
4.22c (1.18)
2.53a (1.06)
2.56a (.99)
3.19a (1.30)
2.50a (.98)
Impression about
the author
4.07a (1.10)
2.68b (1.00)
4.66a (1.07)
4.70a (.79)
Likelihood of
voting for the
2.73a (1.54)
3.45a (1.34)
3.54a (1.72)
3.44a (1.16)
3.31a (1.33)
4.03b (1.32)
4.14b (1.34)
3.55b (1.24)
Notes: Scales range is 17 with higher values indicating greater informality, greater intensity, better
impression, higher likelihood of voting for the candidate and higher perceived persuasiveness.
Means in a same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05.
R2 = .11, F(3, 104) = 4.37, p = .006.
Figure 1. The final model.
Notes: Path coefficients are b. ***p < .001; **p < .01.
Impression of
the candidate
Author Biographies
Nicoletta Cavazza is associate professor in Social Psychology at the Communication and
Economics Department of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy). Her current main
research interests include attitude change, political psychology, persuasive communication, social
aspects of eating. She has published books and scholarly articles in European Journal of Social
Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Social Influence, Journal of Social
Psychology among others.
Margherita Guidetti (PhD, University of Modena-Reggio Emilia) is an adjunct lecturer of Social
Psychology at the University of Modena-Reggio Emilia. Her research interests mainly focus on
health behaviour, explicit and implicit attitudes, social influence, social judgement and reputation
management. She has published peer reviewed articles in Appetite, Psicologia Sociale, British
Journal of Health Psychology, Social Influence and Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.
... 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. Such credibility effect appears not only for testimonies, but also in a political context. ...
... Such credibility effect appears not only for testimonies, but also in a political context. Participants had higher attention and a better impression about the source of a blog post when it contained two taboo words in comparison to a control post without any taboo words (Cavazza and Guidetti, 2014). Interestingly, participants rated the blog post with taboo words as significantly less persuasive than the formal blog post. ...
... Interestingly, participants rated the blog post with taboo words as significantly less persuasive than the formal blog post. Furthermore, the experiment showed that there is an interaction effect with gender: male politicians benefitted more from taboo words than women because women were already evaluated more positively than men (Cavazza and Guidetti, 2014). An explanation for this effect might be that men's blog posts in the control condition were rated significantly more informal than women's blog posts in the control condition. ...
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.
... (For voters who don't let others fuck around with them!) by the Independent List of Stipe Petrina. 14 According to Cavazza and Guidetti (2014) appropriate use of swear words brings politicians closer to people because it is perceived as informal use of language. Consequently, the f-word in the slogan was used as a rhetorical tool "by the source in order to intensify the discourse, and to define an informal and friendly relationship with the receiver, thus reinforcing social connections" (Cavazza and Guidetti 2014: 538). ...
The 2020 parliamentary elections in Croatia were held in an atmosphere marked by fear and anxiety because of negative consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, and riddled with other unresolved socio-economic and political issues. Therefore, choosing appropriate political slogans that would reflect positive messages of hope, encouragement, and safety to the Croatian people seemed of utmost importance. This paper identifies and discusses political discourse strategies behind the creation of selected billboard slogans used in the pre-election period by different political parties and platforms. Taking into account the results of the elections, the research focuses on the negative reactions to the content of the slogans in the Croatian public space. For this purpose, a corpus of readers’ online comments was built and subjected to a computer sentiment analysis. The results show that the majority of citizens in the research sample created negative mental images of political agents and the policies they promote. Further investigation of the reasons for the negative perception and evaluation revealed that the politico-historical and situational contexts play a significant role in shaping the public opinion, specifically in times of crises and threats to public health and wellbeing.
... Though these tweets would generally indicate peace, as mentioned earlier, the mild language and the demonization aspect vitiated their potential to be applied for peace promotion. In fact, incivilty and online profanity are key problems in digital platforms (Cavazza and Guidetti, 2014). ...
Full-text available
This study explores the application of social media in a violent conflict and examines the role that Twitter can play in communicative processes in light of peacebuilding practices. It bridges a gap in communication research by conducting a war/peace framing analysis on Twitter regarding the second deadliest terrorist attack in Pakistan. Our results challenge the idealistic perspectives of peace communication scholars, who predicted that digital platforms would lead to a strong peace framing approach. Similar to traditional media, the tweets were dominated by war frames. Results also showed the amount of war and peace indicators varied over time. Further, findings suggest the narrative that ultimately failed to highlight a peace framework, was largely shaped by local events and the power of traditional stakeholders.
... Incivility can also be beneficial to civic and political engagement. For example, swearing can increase voting intentions (Cavazza & Guidetti, 2014), user attention, and others' online approval (Kwon & Cho, 2017). Other studies have found that uncivil negative information may attract recipients' attention and thus enhance their message recall (e.g., Geer & Geer, 2003), increase their knowledge of political candidates (e.g., Niven, 2006), and raise their interest in political campaigns (e.g., Bartels, 2000). ...
Full-text available
Exposure to presumably uncivil content is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for perceptions of incivility and thus could lead to differential political consequences. To examine the emergence and consequences of perceived incivility in disagreement comments, the present study reports on two population-based online survey experiments in Hong Kong (N1 = 1,207, N2 = 611). The results indicate that individuals perceive a higher degree of incivility in disagreement comments directed to in-group members than in those directed to out-group members, regardless of content features. This bias perception is greater when respondents can easily identify the incivility in a comment. Furthermore, exposure to disagreement comments can only influence willingness to participate and affective polarization indirectly via perceived incivility, and such effects are conditional on whether respondents can easily identify the incivility in a comment.
... This relationship is particularly salient, given DiFonzo and Bordia's (2007) description of rumors as "unverified and instrumentally relevant information statements in circulation that arise in contexts of ambiguity, danger, or potential threat, and that function to help people make sense and manage risks." Cavazza and Guidetti (2014) observed that in both positive and negative online reviews, false information that does not make sense can induce suspicion, thereby reducing the global attitudinal evaluation of the attitudinal object (restaurants in this case). Criss et al. (2015) found that pregnant women used the internet to retrieve pregnancy-related information and considered it reliable. ...
Purpose Dealing with online rumors or fake information on social media is growing in importance. Most academic research on online rumors has approached the issue from a quantitative modeling perspective. Less attention has been paid to the psychological mechanisms accounting for online rumor transmission behavior on the individual level. Drawing from the theory of stimulus–organism–response, this study aims to explore the nature of online rumors and investigate how the informational characteristics of online rumors are processed through the mediation of psychological variables to promote online rumor forwarding. Design/methodology/approach An experimental approach to this issue was taken; the researchers investigated how the informational characteristics of online rumors and the psychological mediators promote online rumor transmission. Findings Four information characteristics (sense-making, funniness, dreadfulness and personal relevance) and three psychological motivators (fact-finding, relationship enhancement and self-enhancement) promote online rumor-forwarding behavior. Originality/value Because any online rumor transmitted on social media can go viral, companies may eventually encounter social media-driven crises. Thus, understanding what drives rumor-forwarding behavior can help marketers mitigate and counter online rumors.
Full-text available
Transformácia verejnej diplomacie na sociálnych sieťach prispela k rozšíreniu politického diskurzu, a tým tiež podporila aktivitu populistických lídrov, ktorí si tak jednoduchšie dokážu získať priazeň širokého publika. Cieľom bakalárskej práce je porozumieť populistickým tendenciám komunikácie Donalda J. Trumpa na Twitteri v témach zahraničných vzťahov, rozborom hlavných diskurzívnych stratégií a nástrojov za pomoci metódy kvalitatívnej obsahovej analýzy textu. Vykonaná analýza dátového súboru z 258 tweetov potvrdila predpoklad, že online komunikácia Donalda J. Trumpa počas posledného roku v úrade narúšala tradičné postupy diplomatického jazyka a preukázala prítomnosť vopred vymedzených znakov populizmu ako komunikačného štýlu – neformálnosti, emocionalizácie, negativizmu, nadmerného zjednodušovania a vulgárnosti.
Swearing in public discourse represents a contentious rhetorical feature of populist leaders’ transgressive politics. This paper argues that, beyond constituting merely “offensive” speech, swearing generatively accomplishes a host of discursive functions which contribute to the fortification of a populist regime. Taking populist President Duterte of the Philippines as a case in point, we utilize a critical text analytics approach to examine his use of profane language across a corpus of 746 of his public speeches. We find that Duterte discursively harnesses swear words to: (a) affirm vernacular identities with hostile humor, (b) claim outsider virtues against corrupt institutions, and (c) marshal insider force as the nation's sovereign leader. Swearing thus represents a rich discursive resource for populist leaders to navigate their contradictory positions as insiders and outsiders to political power, toward both public endearment and coercion of the nation's people. Our findings suggest the importance of critically examining language in relation to collective-level phenomena like populism and the utility of mixed methods approaches for enriching global psychologies of politics and language.
Full-text available
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.
Despite evidence that a majority of people in the United States say that they want more civil politics, candidates still use incivility strategically during campaigns. Distinguishing between descriptive and injunctive norms may help explain this apparent contradiction. This study presents an experiment conducted with participants recruited at 2020 Democratic Iowa Caucus rallies that tested whether (a) individuals differ in their descriptive and injunctive normative beliefs about a variety of uncivil behaviors and (b) candidate characteristics such as gender and insider/outsider status in a party influence respondents’ normative beliefs. Findings suggest that, while descriptive and injunctive norms align for some campaign behaviors, they do not for all behaviors, such as sharing false information and using insults. Additionally, men and women candidates, as well as political insider and outsider candidates, are expected to behave differently but are held to the same injunctively normative standard when uncivil behaviors are attributed to them. Future incivility researchers should continue investigating descriptive and injunctive norms to investigate whether voters dismiss descriptively common behaviors during campaigns, even if they perceive those behaviors as inappropriate and uncivil.
Full-text available
This experiment examined the effects of judicious swearing on persuasion in a pro‐attitudinal speech. Participants listened to one of three versions of a speech about lowering tuition that manipulated where the word “damn” appeared (beginning, end, or nowhere). The results showed that obscenity at the beginning or end of the speech significantly increased the persuasiveness of the speech and the perceived intensity of the speaker. Obscenity had no effect on speaker credibility.
Full-text available
In this article, key concepts and propositions of expectancy violations theory are explicated and then applied to emotional communication. It is proposed that emotional experience and expression can profitably be understood according to what experiences and expressions are expected in interpersonal relationships, the extent to which enacted expressions deviate positively or negatively from expectancies, the degree to which other types of expectancy violations engender emotional expressions, and the effects of deviating from entrenched patterns of emotional expression.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.
The article focuses on a new political player: the Five Star Movement led by the comedian Beppe Grillo. The party lies at the junction between different organisational models and conceptions of democracy: it combines an online and an offline presence; it has ‘horizontal’ structural elements, but a top-down decision-making process; it is positioned ‘beyond’ ideologies, while its electorate comes from various political families. The work considers the history, message, leader, organisation and electoral base of the movement, as well as the political opportunity structure that facilitated its growth in 2012 and the challenges it faces in the delicate phase of institutionalisation.
Taboo words are defined and sanctioned by institutions of power (e.g., religion, media), and prohibitions are reiterated in child-rearing practices. Native speakers acquire folk knowledge of taboo words, but it lacks the complexity that psychological science requires for an understanding of swearing. Misperceptions persist in psychological science and in society at large about how frequently people swear or what it means when they do. Public recordings of taboo words establish the commonplace occurrence of swearing (ubiquity), although frequency data are not always appreciated in laboratory research. A set of 10 words that has remained stable over the past 20 years accounts for 80% of public swearing. Swearing is positively correlated with extraversion and Type A hostility but negatively correlated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, religiosity, and sexual anxiety. The uniquely human facility for swearing evolved and persists because taboo words can communicate emotion information (anger, frustration) more readily than nontaboo words, allowing speakers to achieve a variety of personal and social goals with them (utility). A neuro-psycho-social framework is offered to unify taboo word research. Suggestions for future research are offered. © 2009 Association for Psychological Science.
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.
The main purpose of swearing is to express emotions, especially anger and frustration. Swear words are well suited to express emotion as their primary meanings are connotative. The emotional impact of swearing depends on one's experience with a culture and its language conventions. A cognitive psychological framework is used to account for swearing in a variety of contexts and provide a link to impoliteness research. In support of this framework, native and non-native English-speaking college students rated the offensiveness and likelihood of hypothetical scenarios involving taboo words. The ratings demonstrated that appropriateness of swearing is highly contextually variable, dependent on speaker-listener relationship, socialphysical context, and particular word used. Additionally, offensiveness ratings were shown to depend on gender (for native speakers) and English experience (for non-native speakers). Collectively these data support the idea that it takes time for speakers to learn where, when, and with whom swearing is appropriate.
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.