Swearing and Strength: A Summary of Research on Disinhibition
Introduction to Swearing and its Effects
Swearing, known as offensive or obscene language, is common across languages, suggesting it serves useful functions.
Research indicates several benefits of swearing, including:
Alleviating physical pain.
Alleviating social pain from ostracism.
Increasing persuasiveness and credibility.
Benefitting physical tasks requiring strength and power.
This study focuses on the effect of swearing on physical strength, building on previous research by Stephens et al. (2018).
Stephens et al. (2018) found that repeating a swear word improved performance in both intensive (exercise bike) and moderate (hand grip) physical tasks.
Performance improved by 4.5% on the bike task and 8% on the grip task when participants repeated a swear word compared to a neutral word.
The initial hypothesis that swearing increases autonomic arousal, which in turn mediates the effect on strength, was not supported by the data.
The authors proposed a psychological mechanism: increased state disinhibition, where individuals do not hold back.
State Disinhibition and Swearing
State Disinhibition Definition: Temporarily tending towards behaviors that are under-controlled rather than over-controlled.
O’Connell et al. (2014) found that grunting helped tennis players hit the ball with greater power (19%-26% increase).
Welch and Tschampl (2012) observed increased hand grip strength with shouting.
This article explores the relationship between swearing, state disinhibition, and physical strength.
Trait disinhibition is defined as individual differences in self-regulation, tending towards under-controlled behavior.
Hirsh et al. (2011) proposed a model of state disinhibition based on the deactivation of Gray’s (1982) Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS).
The BIS interrupts ongoing behaviors perceived to lead to aversive consequences, enabling cognitive control for more desirable outcomes.
Disinhibition occurs when the BIS is relatively inactivated, reducing the number of competing responses and simplifying response selection.
Conversely, a highly activated BIS computes multiple competing responses, complicating decision-making.
Three Routes to State Disinhibition (Hirsh et al., 2011)
1. Activation of the Behavioral Activation System (BAS): Dopaminergic circuit associated with reward pursuit.
The BAS narrows attention to desired goals, reducing the activation of the conflict-related BIS.
Hirsh et al. (2011) refer to this as BAS-related silencing of the BIS.
Hot cognitions, such as sexual arousal, can activate the BAS (Van den Bergh et al., 2008).
Swearing, considered a "hot cognition" due to its arousing properties (Stephens & Zile, 2017), may facilitate BAS-related silencing of the BIS, leading to state disinhibition. This is the "hot cognitions pathway."
2. Narrowing of Attention Due to Reduced Cognitive Bandwidth:
This underlies the disinhibitory effects of alcohol, where intoxication limits bandwidth by depleting cognitive resources.
Swearing may similarly narrow attention by distracting the individual, focusing attention on processing swear words, and reducing cognitive bandwidth.
This attention-mediated reduction in BIS activity leads to disinhibition. This is the "distraction pathway."
Prior research indicates that swearing is rated as distracting (Stephens & Robertson, 2020).
3. Reduction in Social Desirability Concerns:
Anonymity can reduce social desirability concerns, keeping the BIS relatively inactive.
Breaking taboo through swearing may diminish these concerns, rendering them irrelevant. This is the "social desirability pathway", also known as the "fuck-it effect."
Experiments Overview
Two experiments were conducted to assess the beneficial effects of swearing on physical strength and the mediating role of state disinhibition.
Experiment 1 focused on the hot cognitions pathway.
Experiment 2 examined a broader range of potential mediator variables across the hot cognitions, distraction, and social desirability pathways.
Experiment 1: Grip Strength and Risky Behavior
The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al. 2002) was used to measure risky behavior.
The BART involves pumping up a virtual balloon; credits are earned for each successful pump, but the balloon may burst, causing a loss of credits.
The average number of pumps on unexploded balloons measures risky behavior (Lauriola et al., 2014).
The BART was selected for behavioral activation, thus elucidating the hot cognitions pathway.
Grip strength was assessed with a hand dynamometer.
Method: Experiment 1
Within-subjects design measured grip strength and BART performance under swearing (repeating a self-nominated swear word) and non-swearing (repeating a self-nominated neutral word) conditions.
Hypotheses:
(1) Swearing would improve physical task performance, resulting in higher mean isometric hand grip force scores.
(2) Swearing would increase the average number of pumps on unexploded balloons.
(3) State disinhibition, measured by average pumps on unexploded balloons, would mediate the beneficial effect of swearing on physical task performance.
Participants: N=56 undergraduates (24 males, 32 females; mean age 21.6 years).
Procedure: Participants provided informed consent, and the study was ethically approved by the Keele University Psychology Ethics Committee.
Design and Analysis: A one-way repeated measures design implemented, with vocalization (swear word vs. neutral word) as the independent variable.
Dependent variables included the mean hand grip score (kg) and the average number of pumps on unexploded balloons.
Condition order was randomized.
Mediation analysis employed the method by Montoya and Hayes (2017) in R, using 5,000 bootstrapped samples to estimate the 95% CI around the indirect effect.
Materials:
JAMAR® hand dynamometer assessed grip force up to 90kg.
A Qualtrics-based version of the BART was used with instructions adapted from Lejuez et al. (2002).
Procedure: Data were collected from two separate studies interrupted by the March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown.
One study (N=30) provided the word “Fuck” and asked for a neutral word describing a table, with a 10-second interval of word repetition prior to task completion.
The other study (N=26) allowed self-nomination of swear and neutral words, with 10 seconds of word repetition prior to each task.
Participants squeezed the dynamometer for 10 seconds, and mean maximum grip performance was calculated across three trials. The BART was always completed after the grip strength task.
Results: Experiment 1
Outliers were corrected using Winsorisation.
Swearing condition had significantly greater mean grip performance (F(1, 55) = 20.871, p < .001, \eta_p^2 = 0.275).
Mean difference was 2.49kg (95% CI = [1.40, 3.58]).
Significant main effect of vocalization on the BART (F(1, 55) = 7.055, p = .010, \eta_p^2 = 0.114).
More pumps were made after swearing (M = 2.15; 95% CI = [0.53, 3.77]).
Condition order effects were non-significant.
Swearing increased grip strength by 2.49 kg (d_z = 0.61, p < .001).
Risky behavior (BART pumps) increased with swearing (d_z = 0.36, p = .010), but a rise in risky behavior did not significantly increase grip strength (p = .051).
The direct effect of swearing on grip strength was more important than the mediated route.
Discussion: Experiment 1
Swearing benefits grip strength (Aim 1) and impacts risky behavior (Aim 2).
Risky behavior may not be part of the mechanism by which swearing influences strength (Aim 3).
Limitations included procedural differences across two studies and low power.
A pre-registered study was designed to address these limitations and examine a wider range of state disinhibition measures.
Experiment 2: Hybrid Online Laboratory Study
Aims:
Assess the effects of swearing on physical task performance in a pre-registered design (https://aspredicted.org/Z5L_THM).
Assess whether constructs related to state disinhibition were affected by swearing.
Assess whether these psychological constructs mediated the beneficial effect of swearing on physical performance.
Trial a hybrid online laboratory experimental protocol.
Experiment 1 had limitations, including inconsistent swearing vocalization procedures and small sample size.
Experiment 2 addressed these limitations by assessing swearing effects on a wider range of measures linked to state disinhibition, specifically the effects of swearing on:
Risky behavior.
Flow.
Emotion (including humor).
Distraction (including novelty).
Self-confidence.
Anxiety.
A body weight exercise (chair push-up task) was used to assess the effect of swearing on physical performance.
The hot cognitions pathway was assessed by:
Risky behavior (BART).
Psychological Flow (Engeser Short Flow scale and Ulrich et al. scale).
Positive emotion, negative emotion, and humor (visual analogue scales).
The Distraction pathway was assessed by
Distraction and novelty (visual analogue scales).
The Social desirability pathway was assessed by
State self-confidence and state anxiety (Revised Competitive State Anxiety-2 scale).
Hypotheses: Repeating a swear word, compared with a neutral word, would:
(1) increase physical task performance,
(2) increase risky behavior,
(3) increase flow,
(4) increase positive emotion and humor,
(5) decrease negative emotion,
(6) increase distraction and novelty,
(7) increase state self-confidence,
(8) decrease cognitive anxiety,
(9) increase somatic anxiety.
(10) that the predicted beneficial effect of swearing on physical task performance would be mediated by BART scores;
(11) that the predicted beneficial effect of swearing on physical task performance would be mediated by flow; and
(12) that any other of the variables related to state disinhibition shown to be affected by swearing would mediate the predicted beneficial effect of swearing on physical task performance.
Method: Experiment 2
Participants: Data collected from N = 128 individuals, with N = 118 included in the analysis (63 males, 53 females, 1 non-binary, 1 preferred not to disclose).
Inclusion criteria:
Speakers of English as first language,
Aged 18 years or above
Free from chronic pain condition, heart condition, problems with the arms, shoulders, neck, or spine
Sample size calculated based on effect sizes from Experiment 1.
N = 24 required for strength based on d_z = 0.61
N = 63 required for BART scores based on d_z = 0.36
N = 70 required for mediation analyses.
Design: Repeated measures design with randomized condition order (swearing vs. neutral word).
Independent variable: vocalization (swearing vs. neutral word).
Dependent variables: chair push-up task scores, BART scores, Engeser and Ulrich flow scales, confidence, somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety scores, positive emotion, negative emotion, humor, distraction, and novelty VAS.
Materials:
Vocalizations: Participants nominated swear and neutral words.
Chair Push-Up Task: Participants supported their body weight on their hands and arms against the chair seat for as long as possible (maximum 60s).
BART: Same version as Experiment 1.
Flow Measures: 10-item Engeser Short Flow Scale (α=.92) and 3-item flow index used by Ulrich et al. (α=.80).
VAS: Assessed positive emotion, negative emotion, humor, distraction, and novelty.
Revised Competitive State Anxiety-2: Assessed self-confidence, somatic anxiety, and cognitive anxiety (Cronbach’s alphas above .80).
Procedure: Hybrid online laboratory experimental design employed due to COVID-19 restrictions.
Participants used a live video link with a researcher.
Participants completed the experiment online through Qualtrics.
Condition order (swearing vs. neutral word) was randomized.
Participants were timed repeating the appropriate word for 10 s, completed the BART and chair push-up task in random order, and filled out questionnaires in random order. On completion of both conditions, a final debrief screen was presented.
Results: Experiment 2
Chair push-up hold time was longer in the swearing condition (F(1, 117) = 10.755, p = .001, \eta_p^2 = 0.084), supporting Hypothesis (1)
Greater number of average pumps on win trials of the BART for the swearing condition (F(1, 117) = 6.663, p = .011, \eta_p^2 = 0.054), supporting Hypothesis (2)
Higher Ulrich flow scale score for the swearing condition (F(1, 117) = 4.486, p = .036, \eta_p^2 = 0.037), supporting Hypothesis (3) for the Ulrich scale, but not for the Engeser scale
Higher ratings of positive emotion for swearing (F(1, 109) = 33.724, p < .001, \etap^2 = 0.236) and higher ratings of humor for swearing (F(1, 115) = 43.094, p < .001, \etap^2 = 0.273), supporting Hypothesis (4)
No effect for negative emotion (F(1, 92) = 1.605, p = .208, \eta_p^2 = 0.017), Hypothesis (5) not supported
Higher ratings for distraction with swearing (F(1, 115) = 17.545, p < .001, \etap^2 = 0.132), but no effect of novelty (F(1, 110) = 1.665, p = .200, \etap^2 = 0.015), partially supporting Hypothesis (6).
Higher state self-confidence score for the swearing condition (F(1, 117) = 6.528, p = .012, \eta_p^2 = 0.053), supporting Hypothesis (7).
No effect of swearing for cognitive anxiety (F(1, 117) = 3.708, p = .057, \eta_p^2 = 0.031), Hypothesis (8) not supported
No effect of swearing for somatic anxiety (F(1, 117) = 1.221, p = .271, \eta_p^2 = 0.010), Hypothesis (9) not supported
Some participants did not complete all VAS measures used to test Hypotheses (4)–(6).
Condition order effects: There were no main effects of condition order; however, the vocalisation×condition order interaction was significant for humour, distraction, self-confidence, and cognitive anxiety.
Mediation: Experiment 2
The mediated route for the prediction of the effect of swearing on chair push-up through BART average pumps was not significant, rejecting Hypothesis (10).
Neither the Engeser nor the Ulrich flow scores mediated the effect of swearing on chair push-up, rejecting Hypothesis (11).
Indirect effects of positive emotion, distraction, and self-confidence as mediators of the effect of swearing on chair push-up performance were not significant.
However, the indirect effect for humor was significant, and the direct effect of swearing on chair push-up time was not significant when controlling for humor.
Discussion: Experiment 2
Swearing benefits physical task performance (chair push-up).
Constructs linked to the hot cognitions pathway for swearing-induced state disinhibition were affected (increased risky behavior, increased flow, increased positive emotion, and increased humor).
There was a mediating effect from humor.
The Ulrich emphasis may place a greater emphasis on enjoyment for flow.
Distraction appeared to be of lesser importance than the hot cognitions.
Swearing can improve self-confidence.
No effect was found from swearing to the ratings of negative emotion, cognitive anxiety, and somatic anxiety.
No carryover effects of swearing into the neutral word condition.
General Discussion
Experiments 1 and 2 assessed whether constructs related to state disinhibition mediate the beneficial effect of swearing on physical strength.
Consistent effects of swearing increasing physical strength tasks.
Constructs related to increased state disinhibition were theoretical linked in Experiments 1 and 2.
The hot cognitions pathway was found in Experiments 1 and 2 from swearing to the effects of risky behavior.
Overall, the BART data presented supports the state that swearing increased risky behavior.
Hot-cognition, distraction, and social desirability pathways from (Hirsh et al., 2011) are theorized and further research will be done.
Future Research
Exploring to assess the individual difference variable, neuroticism using EEG