New research sheds light on implications of using politically correct and incorrect speech and identifies five techniques to increase persuasiveness and diffuse conflict.
Insights from two recent studies in an emerging field—the psychology of conversation—are aimed at organizational leaders interested in improving their conversation styles to create higher quality collaboration.
Francesca Gino, the Tandon Family Professor at Harvard Business School and author of Rebel Talent, began researching the conversation styles of effective leaders after hearing from many top executives about the importance of collaboration. Leaders often wish they could improve the way they collaborate, starting with how they approach working with others, she says.
“Leaders tend to dominate the conversation; they don’t listen and shut down others’ ideas,” Gino wrote in a recent email exchange. “Consequently, the other members of the collaboration are often too afraid, or simply too bored and disengaged, to contribute their own thoughts.”
Because conversations are at the heart of collaboration, and because the topic of politically-tinged speech is so ubiquitous in the media, Gino and her colleagues decided to structure a series of studies to figure out first what politically correct and incorrect language is, and then how it affects people’s perspectives of speakers in conversation. The results were shared in the study, Tell It Like It Is: When Politically Incorrect Language Promotes Authenticity, published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in July 2020. She co-authored the study with recent doctoral graduate Michael Rosenblum and Assistant Professor Juliana Schroeder, both of the University of California, Berkeley.
A separate study looks at “conversational receptiveness” and identifies a specific recipe for receptiveness that leaders and others can follow to improve collaborations and interpersonal interactions in general.
“Conversational receptiveness involves using language that signals a person is truly interested in another’s perspective,” Gino explains. And while it might sound straightforward, she says, “Sometimes we believe we are being receptive when in fact we are doing just the opposite: being on the defensive.”
Taken together, the findings of the two studies can help business leaders both communicate and listen more effectively in this emotionally charged environment.
“Sometimes we believe we are being receptive when in fact we are doing just the opposite: being on the defensive.”
Too PC or not too PC
To better understand the conversational implications of using language that appears political, Gino and her colleagues first asked 201 people what it means to be politically correct. They used the responses to help create the definition employed in their research: “using language (or behavior) to seem sensitive to others’ feelings, especially those others who seem socially disadvantaged.”
“‘Correctness’ doesn’t refer to truth or falsehood,” Gino says, “but to what seems morally right during a particular period in certain circles.” The authors also differentiate between political incorrectness and other types of insensitive communications, such as hate speech.
Across nine studies involving about 5,000 people, the researchers found that listeners tend to perceive speakers who use politically incorrect labels for various groups of people as more authentic. But listeners also saw them as colder.
The researchers’ analysis revealed that the reported perceptions of the speakers depended not on the topic but on the ideology of the listener. (Participants were asked to judge statements on either transgender or immigration policy, for example.)
Because politically correct labels are often applied to groups that tend to garner more sympathy from liberals (e.g., immigrants, LGBTQ individuals,) they tend to perceive PC communication as warm, whereas conservatives tend to perceive it as inauthentic.
But when politically correct language is applied to groups that tend to garner more sympathy from conservatives (e.g., “poor whites” vs. “white trash”; “religious people” vs. “Bible-thumpers”), the findings were reversed.
Additionally, participants reported perceiving a politician who delivered PC remarks as being more susceptible to persuasion than one who was politically incorrect.
“Being politically correct in speech gives listeners the impression that you’re the kind of person who might change your mind,” Gino says. “The speakers who used ‘correct’ language, however, did not report feeling particularly susceptible to influence, despite listeners’ impressions.”
On the subject of politically incorrect speech, the research results suggest that most people are unaware of how it changes other people’s perceptions of them in conversation, Gino says.
The lesson for leaders? “Communicators are wise to modulate their language according to their audience.”
A recipe for receptiveness
In a separate study on the psychology of conversation, Gino worked with another research team to dig into the language of open-mindedness. Through their work, the team identified five ingredients of conversational receptiveness—the use of language to communicate one’s willingness to thoughtfully engage with opposing views—that go beyond “I statements” often taught in grade school.
The resulting working paper, Conversational Receptiveness: Improving Engagement with Opposing Views, was written in collaboration with Michael Yeomans, assistant professor at Imperial College Business School in London; Julia Minson, associate professor of public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; Hanne Collins, a PhD student at Harvard Business School; and Frances Chen, associate professor of psychology at the University of British Columbia. The paper was published in the September 2020 edition of the journal Science Direct.
These are the five ingredients in the recipe for receptiveness, according to Gino:
- Actively acknowledge the other perspective. You can do this by saying things like: "I understand that...," or "You are saying ..." Acknowledging the opposing view doesn't mean that you agree with it—it simply means that you've been listening. This is the opposite of launching into your own point as soon as your partner finishes speaking.
- Highlight areas of agreement, no matter how small or obvious. For example, “I agree that we both want to get back to normal as quickly as possible...” or “I agree that social distancing can be very hard on kids...” Across many studies, we've found that even when people passionately disagree, they usually have some shared values or common beliefs that can bring them together.
- Hedge your claims. “I think it's very possible that the pandemic may overwhelm our medical system” vs. “The pandemic will overwhelm our medical system.” Hedging might sound like you are not sure of your opinion, but others appreciate it because it sounds less dogmatic.
- Phrase arguments in positive versus negative terms. “I think it's helpful to maintain a social distance” vs. “You should not be socializing right now.” It's best to not introduce more negativity into an already tense conversation.
- Try to avoid explanatory words like “because” and “therefore.” These phrases, common in debate, sound argumentative and condescending.
In addition to these strategies, the researchers found that just five minutes of training in these receptive communication techniques could have a significant effect. Specifically, participants who had received training were asked to write a response to an essay written by a person they disagreed with on issues such as policing and minority suspects or sexual assaults on college campuses. Participants in a control group wrote response using their natural conversational style.
“When we discuss each other’s ideas and perspectives, we learn from them and our decisions improve.”
Another set of participants was assigned to respond to those pieces of writing. The researchers made sure that each responder held opposing beliefs to the statement he or she was assigned.
Those who received the training succeeded more often at persuading readers to shift their beliefs, according to the study results. “They were also more sought-after partners for future conversations and were seen as having better judgment,” Gino says.
Getting defensive or staying silent are two common ways that people tend to react when faced with conflict or thorny topics that elicit ardently opposing views. These studies in conversational psychology suggest that engaging in tough conversations by making an effort to show openness to others’ opinions is more effective for being persuasive and resolving conflict.
“When we discuss each other’s ideas and perspectives, we learn from them and our decisions improve,” Gino says. “Plus, the more we feel that others value our contributions, the more likely we are to share our ideas.”
About the author
Kristen Senz is a social media editor and writer for Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. .
[Image: isayildiz]
Related Reading
- How To Ask Better Questions
- It’s Not Nagging: Why Persistent, Redundant Communication Works
- How a New Leader Broke Through a Culture of Accuse, Blame, and Criticize
What techniques do you use to diffuse heated language?
Share your insights below.