One of the more anodyne accusations of social conservatives is that we are living in the midst of an era whereby ‘political correctness has gone mad’.  The accusation is usually a shield by which their offensive remarks can hide behind.

A new study from Berkeley Haas explores some of the consequences of deploying politically incorrect language in our professional lives.  The authors suggest that when people speak in a politically incorrect way, they may cost a degree of warmth, but they are also more likely to come across as authentic.  What’s more, they may also be less likely to be swayed by others.

“The cost of political incorrectness is that the speaker seems less warm, but they also appear less strategic and more ‘real,'” the authors say. “The result may be that people may feel less hesitant in following politically incorrect leaders because they appear more committed to their beliefs.”

Strategic communication

The researchers also believe that there’s nothing inherently partisan about the concept of political correctness, despite it generally being derided by conservatives and defended by liberals.  Indeed, they argue that conservatives are just as likely to be offended if groups such as working class whites or evangelicals are the target of politically incorrect language.

“Political incorrectness is frequently applied toward groups that liberals tend to feel more sympathy towards, such as immigrants or LGBTQ individuals, so liberals tend to view it negatively and conservatives tend to think it’s authentic,” the researchers say. “But we found that the opposite can be true when such language is applied to groups that conservatives feel sympathy for–like using words such as ‘bible thumper’ or ‘redneck’.”

The findings emerged after volunteers from across the ideological spectrum were asked to define political correctness.  A common theme was using language that showed sensitivity to others feelings, and especially so if those others are disadvantaged.

This lack of partisanship continued, as both liberals and conservatives viewed politically incorrect statements as more authentic, whilst also believing they could predict the speakers other opinions based upon their original statement.

Suffice to say, the authors urge us not to take this to mean that Donald Trump has the right approach and his offensive remarks should be copied, as the finding that such remarks also make the person appear cold is not great in a political context.  Neither is the certainty with which such language can make our convictions appear, especially in environments where openness and cooperation are important.

Nonetheless, the findings are an interesting exploration of a topic that is increasingly on our lips.