Researchers tested whether everyday words flagged by institutional "harmful language" guides (e.g., master bedroom, pipeline) actually cause distress. In two experiments led by Michael A. Eskenazi et al. (study: "Pipelines and Master Bedrooms: How Harmful is Harmful Language?," Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences), 616 U.S. adults rated 175 target/alternative word pairs on familiarity, acceptability, and anxiety, and 334 different adults read one of two short stories that either contained 25 targeted terms or their recommended substitutes. Measures included reading comprehension, current anxiety, positive and negative affect, feelings of social inclusion, and personality traits such as interpersonal victimhood and moral elitism. The researchers also examined responses from members of marginalized groups.
Participants slightly preferred the recommended alternatives but nonetheless rated most targeted words as highly acceptable; only clear slurs and pejoratives generated negative ratings. Exposure to a story containing targeted language produced no measurable harms: anxiety, belonging, and positive affect did not differ across groups, and comprehension was slightly higher in the targeted-language condition. Marginalized participants were not more affected, and only individuals high on moral elitism/interpersonal victimhood showed small increases in negative emotion. The authors note limits: single, fictional exposures cannot capture cumulative or community-level effects, and findings do not apply to explicit epithets.
Summary generated by AI from the linked article. hn.today is not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator.