Does attitude importance moderate the effects of person-first language? A registered report

Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to outgroup descriptions that use person-first, as compared to identity-first, language can attenuate negative stereotypes or prejudice and enhance support for policies that seek to advance outgroup rights. However, the benefits of person-first language may not apply to all social groups equally. Specifically, we postulate that person-first language reduces the stigmatization of outgroups, but to a lesser degree if individuals hold more important negative attitudes towards the respective communities. We tested this hypothesis in a two-factorial 2 (target group) x 2 (descriptor) online experiment that included a control group and for which we recruited a general-population sample (N = 522). Stereotyping, dehumanization, as well as negative affect and approach intentions towards two outgroups were compared: people with a physical disability (i.e., negative attitudes were expected to be less important) and people who have committed a violent crime (i.e., negative attitudes were expected to be more important). Results showed that attitudes towards violent crime were more important than those towards physical disability; other than predicted, attitudes towards physical disability were strongly positive. Importantly, this registered report confirmed that the impact of exposure to person-first language cannot be generalized across social groups. Contesting previous work, exposure to the descriptor "people with a physical disability" (rather than "the physically disabled") reduced positive stereotypes and increased dehumanization; there was no impact on negative stereotypes, affect, or outgroup approach intentions. Exposure to the descriptor "people who have committed a violent crime" (rather than "violent criminals"), in turn, did not impact positive stereotypes and dehumanization, but negative affect and stereotypes were reduced, and the willingness to approach the group was increased. Exploratory analyses did not provide convincing evidence that attitude importance modulates the size of the effect of person-first language. Future research ought to consider alternative moderators, such as the perceived mutability of stigmatized attributes.