Study Questions Impact of 'Woke' Word Swaps on Well-Being

Recent research indicates that the widespread effort to replace words perceived as harmful or offensive with purportedly safer alternatives may not yield significant improvements in psychological well-being, and in some instances, people express a preference for the original terms. This finding could challenge the efficacy of some linguistic reform movements.

A study involving 616 U.S. adults examined 175 pairs of words and phrases. Each pair consisted of a term flagged as potentially problematic by language guides from institutions like Stanford University and the American Psychological Association, alongside a suggested replacement. The guides often targeted everyday words and phrases due to their historical associations rather than outright offensive content.

Examples of such replacements include advising "primary bedroom" over "master bedroom" due to associations with slavery, and "pathway" over "pipeline" due to concerns about environmental impact on tribal lands. Other recommendations included swapping "blind review" for "anonymous review," arguing the former could be seen as ableist, and "tone-deaf" for "unenlightened," as the latter uses a physical disability as a metaphor for ignorance.

Participants in the study rated the familiarity and acceptability of the "harmful" terms, as well as the anxiety they caused. The results showed that most of the flagged words were considered highly acceptable, with some even being preferred over their suggested replacements. For instance, "pregnant woman" was favored over "birthing person," "breastfeed" over "chestfeeding," and "Hispanic" over "Latinx." Similarly, "addicted" was preferred 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.

In a subsequent phase, 334 adults were assigned to read short stories containing either the original terms or the suggested alternatives. Post-reading surveys measured reading comprehension, anxiety, emotions, and social inclusion. The study found no measurable difference in well-being between the two groups; reading the stories with flagged terms did not increase anxiety, decrease feelings of belonging, or dampen positive emotions.

Furthermore, the study noted that participants from marginalized groups did not appear to be more negatively affected by the language than those not from such groups. The only individuals who exhibited negative reactions were those with higher levels of moral elitism and a greater need for recognition.

The findings suggest that many terms flagged by language guides are perceived as acceptable and do not cause measurable psychological harm. The study authors noted, "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."

However, the researchers cautioned that their findings do not extend to overt slurs, ethnic epithets, or taboo language, stating, "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."