Abstract

Research indicates that crime-first language (“criminal”) increases stigma, but there is limited evidence comparing person-first language (“person with a conviction”) to other non-deviant terminology. Using two survey experiments, we test whether using person-first language in the employment context has a mimicry effect (i.e. people adopt language they are exposed to) and whether language has a stronger influence when paired with positive employment credentials. We do not find consistent evidence of mimicry. Respondents viewing a positive credential were more likely to use person-centered or professional language and positive credentials generally improved perceptions of the applicant. However, person-first language can cancel out beneficial credential effects compared to alternative language. When considering alternatives to crime-first language, two implications emerge: positive information is more consistently influential than the terminology used, and after establishing a person has a criminal record, substituting other identity labels (e.g. person, applicant) can further reduce stigma.