Aleksandra Świderska

The use of specific words is inextricably linked to the acceptance of existing power structures (Foucault, 1971). Language is never “just” language—it carries a complex historical and social burden...

Reclaimed hate speech is generally seen as a positive phenomenon by minority groups and, to some degree, by majority groups. However, previous research has not examined whether it might produce harmful effects similar to traditional hate speech. In three experimental studies ( n = 489; n = 242; n = 181), we found that reclaimed homophobic hate speech does bear negative consequences. Specifically, exposure to reclaimed homophobic hate speech leads majority‐group members to become desensitized to traditional hate speech, which, in turn, worsens their attitudes toward gay people. This effect, however, has only been observed among conservative and moderate individuals. Moreover, exposure to reclaimed homophobic hate speech worsens the mood of gay people without reducing the negative impact of traditional hate speech. Overall, our findings indicate that the negative side effects of reclaimed homophobic language may outweigh its benefits and that the associated costs may be unacceptable.

Hate speech has been examined regarding both its consequences for minorities and the majority. However, studies are missing in the area of reclaimed hate speech, namely statements that are widely considered offensive but have begun to be used in a non-offensive way by minorities. The purpose of this study was to look specifically at perceptions of reclaimed hate speech, as well as the purposes and consequences of its use by representatives of the LGBT+ community. Partially structured interviews (N = 12 LGBT+ people) were conducted using an insider's perspective in the context of a homophobic society. Thematic analysis of responses showed that reclaimed hate speech is, according to LGBT+ people, a reaction to traditional hate speech, while being their own language related to the exclusiveness of the minority experience. When used by entitled persons, it is not perceived as offensive, but is nevertheless shocking and brings up fears about the normalization of traditional hate speech. This means that reclaimed hate speech, contrary to what has been presented in the existing literature, is not an unambiguously positive phenomenon. Overall, our study can contribute to redefining and improving the emancipation strategies of minority groups.

In response to hate speech, representatives of minorities use reclaimed derogatory language. Until now, psychological research has treated reclamation as a uniform concept in terms of the motivations of minorities, despite theoretical perspectives suggesting otherwise. In this paper, based on previous research, we described three motivations for using reclaimed language: to regain control, for humorous purposes, and to consolidate relationships in the community. We reported the process of creating a new scale to measure these three motivations. The three-dimensional structure of the Motivation for Language Reclamation Scale (MLRS) was validated in two studies (N = 362; N = 141) among gay people in Poland. We also showed that the motivations have various implications for collective action. The MLRS provides researchers and practitioners with a reliable tool for exploring the psychological processes involved in language reclamation and its effects on minority group members.

Exposure to hate speech (HS) leads to desensitization of listeners. Yet, most evidence of this process has been obtained using self‐report measures. In this paper, we examined desensitization to HS using an unobtrusive, psychophysiological measure. In an experimental electrocardiogram study (N = 56), we observed heart rate (HR) deceleration after reading comments that contained HS. This suggested a substantive psychophysiological reaction of participants to hateful comments. However, such HR deceleration was not observed among participants preexposed to HS. People exposed to hateful comments thus appeared to show different HR responses to HS compared to people who were not previously exposed to such comments. Consequently, not only does frequent exposure to HS influence an individual's beliefs as observed in earlier studies, but it also impacts psychophysiological reactions to derogatory language.

Researchers in behavioral sciences often use closed-ended questions, forcing participants to express even complex impressions or attitudes through a set of predetermined answers. Even if this has many advantages, people’s opinions can be much richer. We argue for assessing them using different methods, including open-ended questions. Manual coding of open-ended answers requires much effort, but automated tools help to analyze them more easily. In order to investigate how attitudes towards outgroups can be assessed and analyzed with different methods, we carried out two representative surveys in Poland. We asked closed- and open-ended questions about what Poland should do regarding the influx of refugees. While the attitudes measured with closed-ended questions were rather negative, those that emerged from open-ended answers were not only richer, but also more positive. Many themes that emerged in the manual coding were also identified in automated text analyses with Meaning Extraction Helper (MEH). Using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and Sentiment Analyzer from the Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (CLARIN), we compared the difference between the studies in the emotional tone of the answers. Our research confirms the high usefulness of open-ended questions in surveys and shows how methods of textual data analysis help in understanding people’s attitudes towards outgroup members. Based on our methods comparison, researchers can choose a method or combine methods in a way that best fits their needs.