Reclaimed derogatory language is often seen as an empowering tool for marginalized groups to take back control of harmful language. But new research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology suggests that hearing recycled homophobic remarks can actually cause unintended harm. Research shows that exposure to recycled slurs desensitizes some straight listeners to standard hate speech and worsens the mood of gay people.
Hate speech includes abusive or threatening words directed at individuals based on aspects of their identity, such as race or sexual orientation. Sociologists and psychologists have recognized that this type of language causes psychological distress in minorities. It also increases general prejudice among the broader population. Over time, hearing these words will lead people to accept hostile attitudes as a normal part of society.
According to classical psychological models, verbal prejudice is often the first step in a dangerous progression. Left unchecked, these verbal expressions can escalate into active avoidance, outright discrimination, and systematic violence against minorities. That’s why researchers pay close attention to how hostile language spreads and evolves in everyday conversation.
In response to organized hostility, minority groups may adopt a strategy known as language recycling. This occurs when a community takes a slur that has historically been used against them and intentionally uses it in a positive or positive context. A well-known example is the word “queer.” The word was originally used as an insult, but is now widely used by many non-heterosexual people as a neutral or proud identifier.
Scholars and activists commonly frame language recycling as a successful way to remove the harmful power of slurs. However, few researchers have experimentally tested how hearing these recycled words affects both minorities and the general public. Members of marginalized communities have expressed concern that using recycled slurs can inadvertently legitimize the original insult in the eyes of outsiders.
To investigate these dynamics, psychologists Dominik Puczała, Michał Bilewicz and Aleksandra Świderska of the University of Warsaw in Poland began a series of experiments. The researchers wanted to see if the homophobic language they recovered would act like a liberating shield, or if it would have the opposite effect. They designed three separate tests to investigate how both straight and homosexual people react when they hear slurs in different situations.
In the first experiment, researchers recruited 489 heterosexual Polish adults. Participants were told that they were evaluating audio processing software designed to improve speech clarity in crowded places. This cover story prevented participants from guessing the true purpose of the test. Participants listened to short audio clips of people speaking in public while evaluating an artificial software interface.
Some participants listened to audio clips containing neutral statements about homosexuals. Other participants heard clips containing anti-gay slurs. The researchers manipulated the context of the slur by telling half of the listeners that the recording was from a Pride parade, suggesting that the word would be used again within the host community. The other half were told that the recording was from an unspecified public gathering and suggested traditional hate speech.
After listening to the first clip, all participants were asked to listen to a brand new recording of traditional anti-gay hate speech. They were then asked to rate how offensive they found these new statements. Finally, participants answered questions aimed at gauging their overall acceptance of homosexuality.
The researchers found that exposure to homophobic language in a high-pride environment had a desensitizing effect on conservative and moderate participants. After hearing the recovered slur, these people rated the ensuing traditional hate speech as less offensive than those who heard the neutral audio clip. Due to this decreased sensitivity, participants expressed a decreased overall acceptance of homosexual people.
For example, insensitive people were less likely to say they tolerated having gay people in their neighborhoods or family members. The desensitization effect was not statistically significant among liberal participants. Liberals generally remained highly sensitive to harmful speech, regardless of whether they were first exposed to the audio clip.
To test this pattern, the researchers conducted a second experiment with only 242 conservative heterosexual adults. The researchers intentionally recruited conservatives because previous polling has shown that this ideological group may find offensive content less offensive than liberals. The procedure mirrored the first test and utilized the same audio clips and software evaluation cover story.
The results confirmed the original findings, showing that conservative listeners who heard the recycled slurs became less sensitive to traditional hate speech. For these listeners, the reclaimed community setting did nothing to neutralize the slur. Rather, the context seemed to indicate that using derogatory language toward homosexuals is generally acceptable in modern society.
As a final experiment, Puchava and his colleagues wanted to see how the recovered language affected the target of the slur, both physically and emotionally. The team recruited 181 gay men from Poland and asked them to take part in a similar audio test. The researchers measured participants’ moods both before and after listening to the audio clips. They also assessed participants’ sense of self-competence and internalized homophobia.
In addition to self-report surveys, the researchers used artificial intelligence facial recognition software to monitor participants’ facial expressions as they listened to the recordings. This allowed us to capture subtle signs of distress, such as sadness or anger, and measure emotional responses objectively and behaviorally. The researchers theorized that if recycled words are truly empowering, they should act as an emotional buffer against traditional hate speech.
The data told a completely different story. Hearing the retrieved hate speech significantly lowered gay participants’ mood, consistent with the deterioration in mood caused by traditional hate speech. Hearing the words retrieved in a high-pride environment did not immunize participants from the emotional sting of traditional insults heard later in the test. Facial recognition analysis confirmed this, showing that participants showed similar levels of negative emotions across the different scenarios.
The study did not find that exposure to either form of hate speech increased internalized homophobia or decreased participants’ sense of personal power. The short nature of the audio clip may not have been powerful enough to change deep-seated beliefs about their own identity. Still, it was clear that hearing the slur caused immediate emotional damage, even in situations where the word was implied to be used playfully or supportively.
This finding suggests that the emotional weight of derogatory words does not disappear just because the speaker’s intent changes. While some people may be able to cope within certain social circles by using recycled words, spreading those words outside can have unintended consequences. For outside observers, hearing this slur can reinforce discriminatory attitudes, while for marginalized listeners the words can still feel like painful reminders of historical violence.
The researchers say there are several caveats to their study. The study was conducted in Poland, a country where LGBT rights face severe restrictions and hostile public discourse remains widespread. The baseline level of desensitization and internalized prejudice among Polish citizens may be different from that in other countries. The research team also focused entirely on homophobic language, meaning that people may react differently to recycled language related to race, gender and disability.
Future research should investigate how the specific intentions behind recycled words change listeners’ perceptions. For example, using a slur for comedic effect may have different psychological consequences than using it as a serious political statement. Until these boundaries are better understood, the authors suggest that language reuse remains a risky social strategy. This word seems to have an offensive potential that is incredibly difficult to erase.
The study, “Repurposed homophobic hate speech backfires: Desensitization and mood deterioration,” was authored by Dominik Puchała, Michał Bilewicz, and Aleksandra Świderska.
