Communication

The Effects of Euphemism Usage in Business Contexts

Terri L. Rittenburg • George Albert Gladney •

Teresa Stephenson

Received: 19 April 2014 / Accepted: 8 December 2014 / Published online: 6 February 2015

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Transparency is important in today’s business

environment. The use of euphemisms decreases trans-

parency yet is increasing in business and business educa-

tion. This study examines the effects of euphemism on

people’s attitudes toward actions and their intentions to

perform those actions. It also measures the effect of over-

sight on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Using a 2 9 2

experimental design, we measured participants’ attitudes by

employing a semantic differential scale and behavioral in-

tentions by using a simple yes/no question regarding the

action described. A questionnaire with 20 brief scenarios

provided the euphemistic (transparent) versus non-e-

uphemistic (less-transparent) condition. Oversight versus

non-oversight conditions were manipulated through in-

structions to participants. Hypotheses regarding the effects

of euphemism were supported; participants were both more

likely to rate an action as appropriate and to indicate they

would take that action when stated euphemistically. Over-

sight did not have a significant effect on attitude toward the

action, but did significantly affect participants’ intentions to

take that action. Findings suggest both managerial and

ethical implications for businesses. Greater transparency

includes more straight talk and less euphemism and is

recommended to ensure employees’ understanding and

implementation of ethical business actions.

Keywords Business ethics � Communication � Euphemism � Managerial oversight � Transparency

Introduction

How often do we say what we really mean? In the business

environment, as in our personal lives, euphemisms color

our language and soften the hard edges of our meanings.

Being ‘selectively separated’ or ‘dehired’ sounds nicer than

being fired, although the result of both, of course, is the loss

of one’s job. Norman et al. (2010) note that a critical

challenge facing today’s leaders is gaining their subordi-

nates’ trust. Transparency in communication positively

affected participants’ ratings of their manager’s trustwor-

thiness and effectiveness. They operationalized trans-

parency with statements regarding things such as the

importance of talking openly and freely across organiza-

tional levels. We argue, however, that part of transparency

is eliminating unnecessary use of euphemism.

Allan and Burridge (1991, p. 11) define euphemism as

‘‘an alternative to a dispreferred expression, in order to

avoid possible loss of face: either one’s own face or,

through giving offense, that of the audience, or of some

third party.’’ Euphemisms serve several purposes, includ-

ing reducing the impact and thus the transparency of

negative terms. While euphemisms are generally used to

avoid confrontation, avoid hurting people’s feelings, or

substitute for profanity, they are also used to mislead or

obfuscate the real meaning of what is being said.

Effective communication is crucial in business, between

both internal and external stakeholders. In fact, because of

T. L. Rittenburg

College of Business, University of Wyoming, Dept. 3275, 1000

E. University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071, USA

G. A. Gladney

College of Arts and Sciences, University of Wyoming, Dept.

3904, 1000 E. University Avenu, Laramie, WY 82071, USA

T. Stephenson (&) Beacom School of Business, University of South Dakota, 414 E.

Clark Street, Vermillion, SD 57069, USA

e-mail: teresa.stephenson@usd.edu

123

J Bus Ethics (2016) 137:315–320

DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2501-4

modern communication technologies and electronic com-

merce, the need for clear communication is particularly

pertinent today (Ober 2007). But, as noted by Bové (1986),

corporate communication has deteriorated, at least in part

because of the over-usage of buzzwords that do not clearly

communicate meaning. Bing (2001) deduced that euphe-

mism usage increases in hard times, while people speak

plainly in good times. LaRocque (1998) cautions the need

to deliver the truth, not just empty words. Excessive use of

euphemism in business is often ridiculed (for example, see

Gibbons 2001; Grazian 1997; Leche, 2004a, b; Zane 1996).

At worst, the use of ‘spin’ creates misinformation and

outright deception (Banyard 2003).

As a practical matter, how can business practitioners

determine how much euphemism is too much? Where is

the ‘line in the sand’ to demarcate when euphemism begins

to dilute transparency? The purpose of this study is to

explore these questions. We examine the use of euphemism

in business contexts to determine its effects on communi-

cation receivers’ response to various situations and in-

tended actions. We use an experimental design to compare

responses to euphemistic versus non-euphemistic scenar-

ios. We discuss the implications of the use of euphemisms

in business based on our findings.

The organization of this paper is as follows. The next

section provides a literature review. Following that is the

hypothesis development, then an overview of the method-

ology. Then there is a results section and the paper concludes

with a discussion including limitations and suggestions for

future research.

Literature Review

Taylor (1987) described euphemism as ‘‘the masking of true

meaning beneath palatable phrases’’ (p. 600). In our words,

‘masking a true meaning’ is the same as reducing trans-

parency in communication. Although euphemisms have been

used by humans throughout the ages, some people believe

their usage has increased substantially in recent years to

‘‘become a fit medium for the expression of just about ev-

erything’’ (Murphy 1996, p. 16). Examples abound in every

arena—journalism, education, politics, business, and family

life—to encompass topics that may be taboo or politically

incorrect.

While much has been written about the use of euphemism,

few empirical studies have examined its usage or effects.

Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted experiments in which

participants viewed films of automobile accidents; the use of

different verbs (smashed, collided, bumped, contacted, or hit)

elicited different responses among participants regarding the

perceived speed of the cars and whether participants believed

they saw broken glass in the film. Gruner and Tighe (1995)

studied doublespeak—euphemisms used to obscure or distort

meanings for selfish purposes, rather than simply to spare the

feelings of others. Their findings suggest that users of dou-

blespeak are at least partially successful in what they are

attempting to achieve through its use; further, they found that

embedding a euphemistic term in a typical sentence creates a

context likely to evoke the intended connotations. In a study

of motives for use of euphemisms, McGlone and Batchelor

(2003) found that people tend to euphemize more to save face

for themselves than to spare the feelings or sensibilities of

others, and that euphemizing occurs more often when people

expect to meet others face to face rather than when they will

remain anonymous.

Pfaff et al. (1997) studied the role of metaphorical

knowledge in people’s use and understanding of euphemisms

and offensive expressions, finding that euphemisms are easier

to comprehend when there is a conceptual match between

them and the context. More recently, Gladney and Rittenburg

(2005) studied the use of euphemism in a journalistic context;

they found that euphemisms can favorably affect people’s

assessments or opinions of given situations and may affect

people’s behavior as well. Further, they found that overuse of

euphemisms appeared to have the opposite effect; in other

words, one or two euphemisms may be effective, but several

euphemisms on the same topic or issue will not be.

In a case study, Vickers (2002) found that use of euphe-

misms exacerbated the painful outcomes of downsizing for

employees who lost their jobs. Aucoin and Haynes (1998)

employed an ethical analysis that demonstrated, in the case of

downsizing, that it is likely in the company’s long-term best

interest to communicate openly and honestly with employees

rather than use deceptive euphemisms. We interpret this

evidence to mean that transparent communications lead to

better outcomes.

In summary, use of euphemisms in business settings

seems to be increasing. Although euphemism is an integral

component of language, its overuse may have detrimental

effects. Previous findings suggest that euphemisms can be

effective in changing people’s perceptions of a communi-

cation, particularly when embedded into a sentence that

evokes the intended context. Further, there is evidence that

they are used more often to protect the source than the

sensibilities of the communication receiver. Finally, some

studies suggest that use of euphemisms to deceive or mask

negative consequences may tend to backfire—that frank,

transparent communication may serve a company better in

the long run.

Hypothesis Development

Based on previous findings regarding euphemism, we hy-

pothesize that use of a euphemistic term would be likely to

316 T. L. Rittenburg et al.

123

affect people’s response to a communication. Rawson

(1981) makes a distinction between positive and negative

euphemisms. Positive euphemisms inflate and magnify,

making the euphemized item appear better or more im-

portant, while negative euphemisms downplay or deflate

the seriousness of a negative consequence. So for either a

positive or negative euphemism, it would be expected to

elicit a more positive response than a more direct term.

Therefore, our first hypothesis is as follows:

H1a Participants are more likely to consider an action

appropriate when described using euphemized text.

H1b Participants are more likely to state intention to take

an action when described using euphemized text.

As McGlone and Batchelor (2003) found, people tend to

use euphemism more in face-to-face situations than when

they will remain anonymous. In responding to euphe-

misms, it may follow that people may rate a negative action

as more appropriate when there is no oversight (so their

actions are less visible or not observed by others) than

when there is oversight. In other words, if one action seems

more socially desirable than another, it is likely people will

respond differently if they believe their actions will be

observed. Based on this expectation, a second hypothesis is

proffered:

H2a Participants are more likely to consider an action

appropriate in non-oversight conditions.

H2b Participants are more likely to state intention to take

an action in non-oversight conditions.

Methodology

In order to test the hypotheses, we employed a 2 9 2 ex-

perimental design. The participant sample consisted of 159

students at a western United States university, most of

whom were juniors and seniors (77 %), the remainder

evenly divided between freshmen, sophomores, and grad-

uate students. The majority were 20–23 years old, nearly

all Caucasian and from the U.S. The gender of the sample

was split 45 % male and 55 % female. Participants repre-

sented a variety of religions. There were students from

various majors, though most were concentrated in either

business or arts and sciences. None of these demographic

variables were significant covariates in testing the study’s

hypotheses.

The experiment was conducted in a computer lab with

independent proctors who were unaware of the purposes of

the research. We strived to recruit a broad cross section of

students from different majors; most received some in-

centive for participating by one of their instructors. The

proctors read the instruction condition, which was also

given in the survey instrument for each group. Then the

proctors gave participants the web site and pass code to

access the survey and the participants completed it online.

We tested Hypothesis 1 using conditions of euphemistic

and non-euphemistic text, and Hypothesis 2 by varying

instructions to participants to create oversight and non-

oversight conditions. Because of the importance of context

in perception of euphemisms (Gruner and Tighe 1995;

Pfaff et al. 1997), brief scenarios were created describing

typical business situations. The only differences in these

scenarios were specific euphemized terms that replaced

more blunt terms in the non-euphemistic condition. The

perception of oversight was created by informing the par-

ticipants that, ‘‘The completed exam may ultimately be

scrutinized by the press, juries, and senior executives.’’

The use of scenarios is an established approach in

studies of business ethics to effectively evaluate the ethical

reasoning process (Alexander and Becker 1978; Ca-

vanaugh et al. 1985; Fritzsche and Becker 1982; Reiden-

bach and Robin 1988, 1990; Reidenbach et al. 1991;

Treviño 1992; Weber 1992). The euphemistic terms used in

these scenarios were drawn from a variety of current

textbooks in the areas of management, marketing, and in-

ternational business, as well as a dictionary of euphemisms

(Holder, 2002). Example scenarios are as follows:

Euphemistic Version

Poor people generally cannot afford new cars. Frequently,

however, they can be enticed to finance pre-owned vehicles

at attractive rates to you, the seller.

Non-euphemistic Version

Poor people generally cannot afford new cars. Frequently,

however, they can be enticed to finance used vehicles at

attractive rates to you, the seller.

Euphemistic Version

You are about to explain operations in the Third World.

Part of doing business in some of these countries is offering

soft commissions to host country officials. You are deciding

whether to do so.

Non-euphemistic Version

You are about to explain operations in the Third World.

Part of doing business in some of these countries is offering

bribes to host country officials. You are deciding whether

to do so.

Effects of Euphemism Usage 317

123

Twenty similar scenarios were included in the instru-

ment (italics were not in the instrument). Participants were

given all scenarios in either the euphemized or non-e-

uphemized version, and given instructions that either

indicated their responses would be scrutinized (oversight

condition) or a simple instruction that did not indicate any

oversight of their responses, creating the four conditions:

Euphemism/oversight, euphemism/no oversight, non-e-

uphemism/oversight, non-euphemism/no oversight.

Participants were asked for two types of responses to

each scenario. First they indicated where their opinion fell

on a 7-point Likert scale with appropriate/inappropriate as

endpoints. Then they answered a forced-choice yes/no

question as to whether the subject would take the action

illustrated in the scenario.

Results

Tests of Hypotheses

First we tested to determine if there were significant in-

teraction effects. Finding none, we continued with our tests

of the hypotheses.

We conducted tests of H1a and H2a based on responsesto

the Likert Scale for the 20 scenarios. We tested for differ-

ences between groups using univariate analysis of variance

(ANOVA) (see Table 1). Levene’s test of equality of error

variances was non-significant (p \ .181), indicating no substantial differences in error variances across groups.

There is a significant difference for the euphemistic vs. non-

euphemistic conditions, p \ .000, supporting Hypothesis 1a; however, Hypothesis 2a was not supported. Based on

these results, participants were more likely to think an ac-

tion was appropriate when expressed euphemistically than

when it was expressed non-euphemistically.

Tests of the forced-choice behavioral items represented

in H1b and H2b were conducted through logistic regression

and log linear analysis. In the logistic regression, a forward

stepwise elimination method was employed. Results of the

logistic regression are given in Table 2. Significance tests

based on the Wald statistic showed significant differences

in behavioral intentions toward the actions under both

euphemistic versus non-euphemistic and oversight vs. non-

oversight conditions, supporting Hypothesis 1b at the

p \ .000 level and 2b at the p \ .05 level. A backward hierarchical log linear analysis generated its

best model for euphemistic/behavior and oversight/

Table 1 ANOVA results

* p \ .000 a R

2 = .101 (Adjusted

R 2 = .083)

Condition Mean SD N

Dependent variable = Perception of appropriateness

Euphemism/non-oversight 4.36 .74850 40

Euphemism/oversight 4.14 .77755 45

Non-euphemism/non-oversight 3.71 .89866 36

Non-euphemism/oversight 3.82 .65379 38

Total 159

Source Type III sum of squares df Mean square F Significance

Between-Participants Effects

Corrected model 10.358 a

3 3.453 5.784 .001

Intercept 2535.389 1 2535.389 4246.973 .000

Euphemism/non-euphemism 9.354 1 9.354 15.669 .000*

Oversight/non-oversight .148 1 .148 .248 .619

Interaction Euph.*Over. 1.086 1 1.086 1.820 .179

Error 92.533 155 .597

Total 2673.360 159

Corrected total 102.892 158

Table 2 Logistic regression results

B S.E. Wald df Signif. Exp(B)

Step 1 a

Euphemism (1) -.364 .071 25.927 1 .000 .695

Constant .108 .052 4.320 1 .038 1.114

Step 2 b

Euphemism (1) -.367 .072 26.351 1 .000 .693

Oversight (1) -.171 .071 5.759 1 .016 .842

Constant .192 .063 9.351 1 .002 1.211

a Variable(s) entered on step 1: euphemism

b Variable(s) entered on step 2: oversight

318 T. L. Rittenburg et al.

123

behavior conditions with a likelihood ratio Chi-square

value of 1.61672 with df = 2 and P = .446. This model

supports the main effects represented in H1b and H2b for

the euphemism vs. non-euphemism and oversight vs. non-

oversight conditions.

Discussion

Several interesting findings emerge from these results. The

strong main effects for the euphemism/non-euphemism

condition, for both the semantic differential scale and the

forced-choice item, indicate that use of euphemistic terms

can strongly affect people’s attitudes and behavioral in-

tentions. With respect to the oversight condition, expecta-

tion of scrutiny made a significant difference for the

behavioral intentions measure, but not the attitudinal one.

This should not be surprising; if the oversight of others is

likely have an effect, it would be more likely on behavior

(which is socially visible) than attitude (which is not).

The purpose of euphemisms is to sugar-coat terms that

people may find offensive or objectionable, that is, to reduce

the transparency of the communication. Therefore, it is not

surprising to find that people respond more favorably to a

euphemistic term than to a blunter one. In the business

context, however, the use of euphemism may mask actions

that have negative consequences for stakeholders such as

employees, suppliers, distributors, customers, or investors.

More transparent communication might lead to better un-

derstanding of the real consequences of actions. For exam-

ple, calling a bribe a ‘soft commission,’ makes it sound like

something legitimate, muting the legal, not to mention

ethical, ramifications of this action. Business managers run

less risk of confusing or misleading employees by speaking

plainly and using more transparent language. Moreover,

overuse of euphemisms may damage management’s cred-

ibility with employees and other stakeholders.

There are strong ethical implications of the findings in

this study. Participants perceived an action as more appro-

priate when stated euphemistically, and they were more

likely to say they would take the action as well. Managerial

oversight appears to have a slight effect on behavioral in-

tentions, with participants more likely to take actions they

viewed as inappropriate when no oversight was expected;

however, the lack of a significant interaction effect leaves

the effects of oversight and euphemism combined a bit

fuzzy. Based on these findings, we conclude that oversight

may provide a deterrent to inappropriate actions, but the use

of euphemism is likely to increase intent to act.

These findings may have particular import for employees

still learning the business and the ethical parameters of an

industry. Newer, younger employees are more likely to en-

gage in misconduct (Brigham 2005); they are also likely to

rely on superiors as role models, and a boss’s bad behavior

can influence young employees just beginning their careers

(Sandberg 2005). It follows that by soft-pedaling negative or

inappropriate actions with euphemistic labels, employees

newer to the business may be more likely to take such ac-

tions than those with more experience. This is likely to be

especially true in organizations that do not have strong ex-

ecutive role models, reward systems or corporate cultures

that guide ethical behavior (Baumhart 1961; James 2000;

Loe et al. 2000; Nill and Schibrowsky 2005; Robin and

Reidenbach 1987). Therefore, these findings suggest the

need for transparent communication in order to avoid the

ethical pitfalls associated with many euphemisms.

As with any study involving human participants, there are

limitations that may affect its outcomes. Foremost was the use

of student participants; while convenient, further research

with a more representative sample of business people would

allow greater generalizability to the broader business

population. Future research also could test a broader array of

euphemisms and examine a greater variety of negative and

positive actions. For example, the effects of oversight might

be stronger where the magnitude of a negative action is

greater; a larger study might allow researchers to ‘tease out’

such nuances. More specific examination of the ethicality of

actions could be measured as well, in addition to the appro-

priateness/inappropriateness of these actions.

Years ago, Orwell (1933) decried the decay of the English

language. While the effect of this decay seems merely aca-

demic at first glance, the findings of this study demonstrate

that unethical actions may ensue from overuse of euphe-

mism. As Orwell (1933) suggested, ‘‘… if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought’’ (p. 364).

People’s willingness to assess actions less critically

when they are labeled euphemistically has harsh implica-

tions for business practice. More transparent communica-

tion may better serve employees as well as the businesses

they serve, particularly in ensuring understanding and im-

plementation of corporate ethical guidelines and codes of

conduct.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Jennifer Weatherford and the late James N. Smithson for their assistance with this project.

We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and editorial staff of

the Journal of Business Ethics.

References

Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in

survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(Spring), 93–104.

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Aucoin, J. L. & Haynes, J. R. (1998). Downsizing, rightsizing, and

other euphemisms: The questionable ethics of some corporate

Effects of Euphemism Usage 319

123

communications. Presented to the media ethics interest group,

AEJMC, annual meeting, Baltimore.

Banyard, P. (2003). The art of deception. Credit Management,

2(September), 28–29.

Baumhart, R. C. (1961). How ethical are businessmen? Harvard

Business Review 39(July–August), 7–19, 156–176.

Bing, S. (2001). A glossary for hard times. Fortune, 143(7), 61–62.

Bové, R. (1986). Is this the dawn of the non-information age?

Training and Development Journal, 40(4), 44–45.

Brigham, A. (2005, July 20–22). Innovative methods for teaching

business ethics (panel presentation), Teaching Business Ethics

Conference, Boulder, Colorado.

Cavanaugh, G. F., Fritzsche, S. J., & Fritzsche, D. J. (1985). Using

vignettes in business ethics research. Research in Corporate

Social Performance and Policy, 7, 279–293.

Fritzsche, D. J., & Becker, H. (1982). Business ethics of future

marketing managers. Journal of Marketing Education, 4(Fall),

2–7.

Gibbons, B. J. (2001). Avoiding confrontation through euphemism.

Across the Board, 38(March/April), 54.

Gladney, G. A., & Rittenburg, T. L. (2005). Euphemistic text affects

attitudes, behavior. Newspaper Research Journal, 26(1), 28–41.

Grazian, F. (1997). On euphemisms, gobbledygook and doublespeak.

Public Relations Quarterly, 42(Summer), 21–22.

Gruner, C. R., & Tighe, M. R. (1995). Semantic differential

measurements of connotations of verbal terms and their

doublespeak facsimiles in sentence contexts. Psychological

Reports, 77(3, Pt. 1), 778.

Holder, R. W. (2002). How not to say what you mean: A dictionary of

euphemisms (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

James, H. S., Jr. (2000). Reinforcing ethical decision making through

organizational structure. Journal of Business Ethics, 28(1),

43–58.

LaRocque, P. (1998). Deliver the truth, not just empty words. Quill,

86(7), 63.

Leche, P. (2004a). Say what? Policy & Practice, 62(June), 32.

Leche, P. (2004b). Say what? Policy & Practice, 62(December), 32.

Loe, T. W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical

studies assessing ethical decision making in business. Journal of

Business Ethics, 25(3), 185–204.

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile

destruction: an example of the interaction between language and

memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,

13(October), 585–589.

McGlone, M. S., & Batchelor, J. A. (2003). Looking out for number

one: Euphemism and face. Journal of Communication, 53(June),

251–264.

Murphy, Cullen. (1996). The E word. Atlantic Monthly, 278(3),

16–18.

Nill, A., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2005). The impact of corporate

culture, the reward system, and perceived moral intensity on

marketing students’ ethical decision making. Journal of Mar-

keting Education, 27(1), 68–80.

Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2010). The impact of

positivity and transparency and trust in meters and perceived

effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 350–364.

Ober, S. (2007). Contemporary business communication (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Orwell, G. (1933). The Orwell reader. New York: Harcourt, Brace

and Company.

Pfaff, K. L., Gibbs, R. W., Jr, & Johnson, M. D. (1997). Metaphor in

using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied

Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 59–83.

Rawson, H. (1981). A dictionary of euphemisms and other doubletalk.

New York: Crown.

Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1988). Some initial steps toward

improving the measurement of ethics evaluations in marketing

activities. Journal of Business Ethics, 7(11), 871–879.

Reidenbach, R. E., & Robin, D. P. (1990). Toward the development

of multidimensional scale for improving evaluations of business

ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(8), 639–653.

Reidenbach, R. E., Robin, D. P., & Dawson, L. (1991). An application

and extension of a multidimensional ethics scale to selected

marketing practices and marketing groups. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 19(2), 83–92.

Robin, D. P., & Reidenbach, R. E. (1987). Social responsibility,

ethics, and marketing strategy: Closing the gap between concept

and application. Journal of Marketing, 51(January), 44–58.

Sandberg, J. (2005). A boss’s bad behavior can forever influence

employees starting out. Wall Street Journal, Eastern Edition

245(March 23), B1.

Taylor, H. (1987). The strength of words. Vital Speeches of the Day,

53(19), 600–602.

Treviño, L. (1992). Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications

for research, education, and management. Journal of Business

Ethics, 11(5/6), 445–459.

Vickers, M. H. (2002). ‘People first—Always’: Euphemism and

rhetoric as troublesome influences on organizational sense-

making—A downsizing case study. Employee Responsibilities

and Rights Journal, 14(September), 105–118.

Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: Review,

critical assessment, and recommendations. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 2(2), 137–160.

Zane, J. P. (1996). Word for word/doublespeak it is fundamentally

true that the terms below are in English. The New York Times,

1(May 26), 7.

320 T. L. Rittenburg et al.

123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.