By Camiel Beukeboom, 12 september 2025

We often talk about people in generic terms. We may discuss the characteristics of genZ, the generic differences between men and women, talk about streams of immigrants, about Asians, politicians, tourists, or people labeled as woke.

This is superficial. It reduces people to just one categorizing feature. It exaggerates similarities within categories and differences between categories, and it ignores that behaviors and characteristics vary enormously between individuals, and also between situations, contexts and times.

In this article “Linguistic stereotyping in natural language: How and when we generalize in communication about people“, I unpack how generic language in our everyday communication contributes to the formation and perpetuation of social-category stereotypes.

I first examine how generalization takes shape in communication about others. When we generalize in language (e.g., girls are sweet), we place both individuals and their behaviors into categories, shifting away from concrete, observable actions of individuals, to convey an enduring and stable stereotypic impression of a generic social category. This is subtly reflected in language, both in the types of references we use and in the ways we describe behaviors and characteristics.

Second, I explore when people generalize in their communication, rather than specify and use more nuanced descriptions of individual, situated behavior. Language use is often a reflection of the way we cognitively process social information. A low-effort, superficial, cognitive process relates to generic language. A more effortful and deep level of processing results in more narrow categories and specific levels of information. Information that is in line with our stereotypic views is likely processed superficially and consequently expressed in more generic language (thus confirming stereotypic views; e.g., women are emotional). Unexpected information is, however, likely processed more deeply and expressed in concrete and specific language (e.g., the man is crying in his office).

Interactive processes also play a role. Generalization is particularly expected in social environments with like-minded people (e.g., friends in a bar, in locker-room talk, or social media echo chambers), where there’s agreement and little critical questioning. Here communication can occur at a high level of generalization, facilitating the direct sharing of generic stereotypes.

Generalization is not necessarily harmful. Categorizing in generic terms reduces complexities and is often functional. It helps us to make sense of an otherwise complex social world by conveniently organizing it in a manageable number of boxes. It can, however, be harmful when we forget that it lacks nuance, and when we confidently base our judgments of others and their behavior upon this limited (and/or erroneous) representation of reality. This results in prejudice and discrimination.

That is why it is important to recognise generic language use that expresses stereotypes. Research suggests that too much generalization can be countered by a simple frown, a silence, or a question for substantiation (e.g., ‘what is that based upon?,’ ‘How do you know?’). This forces a speaker toward more nuance and concrete detail. With such responses, we can make each other aware when communication about people is superficially generic and lacks concrete substantiation.

—-

You can find the complete article (open access) here. It is part of a special issue on Intergroup Communication in the Atlantic Journal of Communication.

Beukeboom, C. J. (in press, 2025). Linguistic stereotyping in natural language: How and when we generalize in communication about people. Atlantic Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2025.2525799

This paper was presented in keynotes at:

3rd International Symposium on Intergroup Communication (ISIC3, Warsaw, Poland, 24-26 June 2025)

International Conference Generics and stereotypes in discourse: A cross-disciplinary perspective (Leiden, 5-6 June 2025)