Using woke alternative words doesn’t actually cause psychological harm: study

This may leave the language police speechless.

Over the last decade, a growing movement has sought to scrub words considered harmful or offensive from the lexicon, replacing them with alternatives proponents say are less psychologically distressing to hear and read. 

But new research suggests there’s little evidence that the swap actually improves well-being — and in some cases, people prefer the originals.

In the study, scientists from MacEwan University in Canada and Stetson University in Florida recruited 616 US adults and asked them to rate 175 pairs of words and phrases.

Each pair included a term flagged as “harmful” by language guides from academic and professional groups, including Stanford and the American Psychological Association, along with a suggested alternative.

Most were everyday words and phrases that the guides considered potentially offensive because of their history or associations, rather than outright insults or slurs — though a few of those made the list, too.

For example, some guides recommend swapping “master bedroom” for “primary bedroom” because of the former’s alleged ties to slavery. Others suggest replacing “pipeline” with “pathway” over concerns about the term’s association with companies transporting crude oil through tribal lands and polluting local water supplies.

There were also some everyday expressions you might not think twice about. Some guides flag “blind review” in favor of “anonymous review,” arguing that the former could be viewed as ableist toward visually impaired people. “Unenlightened,” meanwhile, was offered as an alternative to “tone-deaf,” because the term uses a physical disability as a metaphor for a lack of knowledge or awareness.

In the study, the participants read each of the “harmful” terms in a sentence and rated how familiar and acceptable it was, as well as how much anxiety it caused them.

Scientists found that most of the supposedly offensive words were rated as highly acceptable, with some even beating out the recommended replacements.

“Pregnant woman,” for example, ranked among the top 10 “harmful” terms that participants preferred over the recommended alternative, “birthing person.” The same went for “breastfeed” over “chestfeeding” and “Hispanic” over “Latinx.”

The participants also preferred “addicted” to “hooked” and “victim” to “person who has been impacted by.”

“Participants view the harmful language as generally acceptable and are willing to use them so long as they are not pejoratives,” the researchers concluded.

The team then put the findings to a second test to gauge just how harmful these words actually are. They randomly assigned another 334 adults to read one of two versions of a short story — one with the “offensive” words and one with the recommended alternatives.

After, participants completed surveys that measured their reading comprehension, anxiety, positive and negative emotions and feelings of social inclusion.

Again, the supposedly harmful language failed to produce the psychological effects the guides warn about.

The scientists found no measurable difference in well-being between the two groups. Reading a story filled with terms flagged as harmful didn’t increase anxiety, reduce feelings of belonging or dampen positive emotions.

“We also find no evidence that participants from marginalized groups are more negatively impacted by exposure to harmful language than participants who are not from marginalized groups,” the authors wrote.

In fact, they added, the only people who showed any negative reaction to the harmful language “were those with higher levels of moral elitism and need for recognition.”

The results suggest that most of the terminology flagged by the language guides was viewed as acceptable and didn’t produce measurable psychological harm in the experiments.

“As such, there is little need to cast those who use terms such as pipeline, master bedroom, breastfeeding and blind review, as seeking to cause harm and hence needing to be punished socially,” the study authors wrote.

The scientists did, however, highlight an important caveat: “The results of this study should not be used as an excuse for those who seek to use racial slurs, ethnic epithets, taboo language, or other pejoratives,” they cautioned. “Our findings do not apply to that category of words or phrases.”