Speakers framing an unfortunate event using generic pronouns are perceived as more compassionate

• In Event: Poster Session 14
  In Poster Session: PS 14 Topic - Language, Communication

Abstract

The ability to move beyond one’s own perspective, putting oneself in another person’s shoes, is an important part of achieving compassion. Generic pronouns (“you”, “we”) offer a way to shift from an individual perspective to one shared with others, with people in general (e.g., Gelman & Roberts, 2017; Orvell et al., 2017). Indeed, previous studies have shown that adults and children use generic pronouns to reframe personal events as experiences that are common to others (e.g., “you should be kind to one another”; Orvell et al., 2017, 2018). It remains unclear, however, whether adult and child listeners also use the subtle cues provided by generic pronouns to evaluate someone else’s compassion towards another, and when this sensitivity might emerge over development.
In this pre-registered study, we ask whether adults and children (age 6–9) perceive speakers framing an unfortunate event using generic language as being more compassionate than speakers using specific language.
Participants heard two short stories depicting mildly negative events (e.g., Sam dropped her stickers in the mud). Each story was then framed by a speaker either using specific language (e.g., “Sometimes Sam drops things and she gets them yucky”), or using generic language (e.g., “Sometimes you/we drop things and you/we get them yucky”). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two generic language conditions: “you vs she” or “we vs she”. We also counterbalanced which of the stories was framed using specific or generic language, and whether the story framed using generic language was presented first or second. After each story, participants were asked whether the speaker was nice or mean, whether they blamed the character for what happened (“no”, “yes, a little”, “yes, a lot”), and how many of 3 new resources (e.g., stickers) they would give to the character.
As predicted, adults (“you” n=139, “we” n=124) perceived the speaker to be more compassionate towards the character when they framed the story using generic compared to specific language. Specifically, adults were more likely to say that the speaker was nice (“you” β=3.35, “we” β=4.03, Ps<0.001; Figure 1A), that they did not blame the character (“you” β=-2.85, “we” β=-3.11, Ps<0.001; Figure 1B), and that they would allocate a larger amount of resources to the character (“you” β=1.85, “we” β=2.35, Ps<0.001).
The results show that adults rely on subtle linguistic cues to make inferences about a speaker’s attitude toward others, and specifically that the use of generic pronouns conveys greater compassion.
To ask when this sensitivity to generic language emerges, we are currently testing 6–9-years-old children through an online, self-administered procedure. As per our pre-registration, we plan to collect data from n=160 children (n=80 per generic pronoun) and expect to finish data collection and analysis by the SRCD meeting.

Authors

• Giulia V Elli, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  Presenting Author

• Ariana Orvell, Bryn Mawr College
  Non-Presenting Author

• Ella Simmons, University of California, Berkeley
  Non-Presenting Author

• Valerie Umscheid, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  Non-Presenting Author

• Susan A Gelman, University of Michigan - Ann Arbor
  Non-Presenting Author