Reframing Redemption: Public Use and Perceptions of Labeling Alternatives in Criminology

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Person-first language, like saying "person with a conviction" instead of "criminal," is designed to reduce stigma and help people rebuild their lives. But what if this well-meaning approach is actually backfiring?

Institution: Faculti

Explore more insights in:

Law Podcasts Podcasts

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Faculti . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Research referenced in podcast

Person-first language, like saying “person with a conviction” instead of “criminal,” is designed to reduce stigma and help people rebuild their lives. But what if this well-meaning approach is actually backfiring?

Image courtesy of interviewee. January 17, 2025

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video discusses the implications of using person-first language, such as referring to "a person with a criminal record" instead of "a criminal," aimed at reducing stigma and aiding reintegration into society. However, recent research indicates that this sensitive language may inadvertently harm individuals’ chances of employment by drawing attention to their criminal history rather than their qualifications. The study showed that job applications using neutral terms like "candidate" alongside strong credentials received better responses from employers. It also found that combining person-first language with positive credentials often negated the credentials' positive effects.

The conversation emphasizes that instead of solely focusing on language, creating genuine opportunities for individuals to build new identities through skills and achievements is crucial. Recommendations include offering training programs and strategically using language to acknowledge criminal records briefly before shifting focus to professional qualifications. Ultimately, the research advocates for actionable changes over linguistic adjustments to foster environments allowing individuals to showcase their current capabilities and paths toward transformation.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video:

1. **Person-First Language and Its Impact**: The video discusses the concept of person-first language, which emphasizes the individual over their past criminal record, aiming to reduce stigma and assist reintegration. However, research indicates that this approach may inadvertently stigmatize individuals by keeping their criminal history in focus.

2. **Employer Reactions to Language Usage**: Research found that when job applications used neutral terms like "candidate" or "applicant" while highlighting strong credentials, employer responses were more positive compared to applications employing person-first language.

3. **Positive Credentials Matter Most**: The study highlighted that positive credentials, such as professional certifications, significantly influence employer perceptions. However, when these credentials were presented alongside person-first language, the positive effect diminished, suggesting the language may draw attention back to the criminal record.

4. **Ineffectiveness of Language Adoption**: The research also indicated that exposure to person-first language did not lead to a consistent adoption of this terminology by individuals, challenging assumptions about the efficacy of institutional language changes.

5. **Recommendations for Organizations**: The study suggests that organizations should create genuine opportunities for individuals to earn positive credentials and be strategic with language—acknowledging criminal records only when necessary, and then quickly shifting to neutral professional terms. This approach emphasizes the importance of action and opportunities over merely changing language.

Export as PDF
Here are the key quotes extracted from the video regarding person-first language and its impact on employment for individuals with criminal records:

1. "Person first language, you know, saying person with a conviction instead of criminal. It's supposed to reduce stigma and help people rebuild their lives. But groundbreaking research shows this well-intentioned approach might actually be making things worse."

2. "The study showed that when applications use neutral terms like candidate or applicant alongside strong credentials, employers responded much more positively than when they used person first language."

3. "Every time we use person first language, even with good intentions, we're essentially highlighting the criminal record instead of letting it fade into the background."

4. "First, positive credentials, like professional certifications made the biggest difference in employer perceptions. Second, when they combine these credentials with person first language, the positive effect often disappeared completely."

5. "The need to create actual opportunities for people to build new identities through achievement, rather than just changing how we talk about their past."

6. "The research suggests that what really matters is giving people the chance to develop new master statuses through their current roles and achievements. It's about creating pathways for genuine transformation."

7. "First, focus on creating genuine opportunities for people to earn positive credentials, training programs. Second, be strategic about language, acknowledge criminal records when necessary, but then shift quickly to neutral professional terms."

8. "This research challenges fundamental assumptions about how we approach reintegration and second chances in society."

9. "While language plays a role, the study makes it clear that real change comes from creating concrete opportunities for people to build new lives and identities. It's about actions, not just words."

These quotes encapsulate the essence of the discussion around person-first language, its unintended consequences, and the importance of creating meaningful opportunities for reintegration and transformation.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:90000

1
00:00:02.345 --> 00:00:04.725
Person first language, you know, saying person

2
00:00:04.725 --> 00:00:06.605
with a conviction instead of criminal.

3
00:00:07.075 --> 00:00:08.565
It's supposed to reduce stigma

4
00:00:08.985 --> 00:00:10.685
and help people rebuild their lives.

5
00:00:12.025 --> 00:00:14.765
But groundbreaking research shows this well-intentioned

6
00:00:14.965 --> 00:00:17.605
approach might actually be making things worse.

7
00:00:18.195 --> 00:00:20.685
Welcome to the Faculty Law and Society podcast.

8
00:00:21.305 --> 00:00:24.005
That's fascinating and completely counterintuitive.

9
00:00:25.195 --> 00:00:27.085
What exactly did the researchers discover?

10
00:00:28.045 --> 00:00:30.535
Well, they found that when employers reviewed job

11
00:00:30.535 --> 00:00:34.255
applications, carefully constructed person first language,

12
00:00:34.935 --> 00:00:37.615
actually undermined the impact of positive credentials.

13
00:00:38.635 --> 00:00:41.695
We are talking about roughly 70 million Americans,

14
00:00:42.155 --> 00:00:45.375
one in three adults who have some type of criminal record

15
00:00:45.875 --> 00:00:47.055
and face these barriers.

16
00:00:48.075 --> 00:00:50.965
Hold on. So you're saying that trying to be more sensitive

17
00:00:50.965 --> 00:00:52.245
with language could actually hurt

18
00:00:52.245 --> 00:00:53.645
someone's chances of getting hired?

19
00:00:54.565 --> 00:00:57.285
Exactly right. The study showed

20
00:00:57.405 --> 00:01:00.525
that when applications use neutral terms like candidate

21
00:01:00.585 --> 00:01:03.405
or applicant alongside strong credentials,

22
00:01:04.325 --> 00:01:07.565
employers responded much more positively than when they used

23
00:01:07.565 --> 00:01:09.605
careful person first constructions.

24
00:01:10.065 --> 00:01:11.285
You know what this reminds me of?

25
00:01:11.795 --> 00:01:14.365
It's like when you tell someone not to think about something

26
00:01:14.625 --> 00:01:16.285
and that's all they can focus on.

27
00:01:16.865 --> 00:01:18.645
That's exactly what's happening here.

28
00:01:19.255 --> 00:01:22.245
Every time we use person first language, even

29
00:01:22.245 --> 00:01:23.245
with good intentions,

30
00:01:23.495 --> 00:01:26.565
we're essentially highlighting the criminal record instead

31
00:01:26.565 --> 00:01:28.205
of letting it fade into the background.

32
00:01:29.655 --> 00:01:32.755
So what did the research show actually works better? Well,

33
00:01:32.905 --> 00:01:35.345
The data points to two key findings.

34
00:01:35.755 --> 00:01:37.545
First, positive credentials,

35
00:01:37.545 --> 00:01:39.185
like professional certifications

36
00:01:39.525 --> 00:01:41.025
or strong work experience,

37
00:01:41.415 --> 00:01:43.985
made the biggest difference in employer perceptions.

38
00:01:44.645 --> 00:01:47.625
Second, and this is where it gets really interesting.

39
00:01:48.055 --> 00:01:49.665
When they combine these credentials

40
00:01:49.665 --> 00:01:51.065
with person first language,

41
00:01:51.405 --> 00:01:54.345
the positive effect often disappeared completely.

42
00:01:55.605 --> 00:01:58.545
Hmm. So it's almost like the careful language keeps

43
00:01:58.545 --> 00:02:00.065
drawing attention back to exactly

44
00:02:00.065 --> 00:02:01.345
what we're trying to move beyond.

45
00:02:02.605 --> 00:02:05.355
Right, and here's another surprising finding.

46
00:02:05.905 --> 00:02:08.515
They tested whether people would naturally adopt person

47
00:02:08.515 --> 00:02:10.435
first language after being exposed to it.

48
00:02:10.945 --> 00:02:12.675
What they called the mimicry effect.

49
00:02:13.755 --> 00:02:16.055
The evidence showed people didn't consistently

50
00:02:16.055 --> 00:02:17.335
pick up the new terminology.

51
00:02:18.005 --> 00:02:20.375
That really challenges everything we've been taught about

52
00:02:20.375 --> 00:02:22.295
institutional language changes, doesn't it?

53
00:02:22.925 --> 00:02:24.025
It absolutely does,

54
00:02:24.775 --> 00:02:26.675
and it points to something much deeper.

55
00:02:27.415 --> 00:02:30.435
The need to create actual opportunities for people

56
00:02:30.435 --> 00:02:33.315
to build new identities through achievement,

57
00:02:33.695 --> 00:02:36.475
rather than just changing how we talk about their past.

58
00:02:37.175 --> 00:02:39.555
You know, this makes me think about recovery programs.

59
00:02:40.055 --> 00:02:41.835
At some point, people need to be seen

60
00:02:41.835 --> 00:02:43.595
as more than just their recovery journey.

61
00:02:44.175 --> 00:02:45.875
That's such a powerful parallel.

62
00:02:46.485 --> 00:02:47.985
The research suggests that

63
00:02:47.985 --> 00:02:50.825
what really matters is giving people the chance

64
00:02:51.205 --> 00:02:53.225
to develop new master statuses

65
00:02:53.375 --> 00:02:55.825
through their current roles and achievements.

66
00:02:56.615 --> 00:02:59.845
It's about creating pathways for genuine transformation.

67
00:03:00.425 --> 00:03:02.325
So what should organizations actually

68
00:03:02.325 --> 00:03:03.405
do with this information?

69
00:03:04.315 --> 00:03:06.805
Well, the study recommends a two-pronged approach.

70
00:03:07.455 --> 00:03:11.405
First, focus on creating genuine opportunities for people

71
00:03:11.425 --> 00:03:14.245
to earn positive credentials, training programs,

72
00:03:15.045 --> 00:03:17.805
certifications, meaningful work experience.

73
00:03:18.425 --> 00:03:20.845
Second, be strategic about language,

74
00:03:21.155 --> 00:03:23.485
acknowledge criminal records when necessary,

75
00:03:23.865 --> 00:03:26.645
but then shift quickly to neutral professional terms.

76
00:03:27.675 --> 00:03:29.925
That sounds like it would require a pretty significant

77
00:03:29.925 --> 00:03:31.725
shift in how organizations approach hiring

78
00:03:31.745 --> 00:03:33.165
and advancement. You

79
00:03:33.465 --> 00:03:37.305
Are right, and the implications go way beyond just hiring.

80
00:03:38.015 --> 00:03:40.865
This research challenges fundamental assumptions about

81
00:03:40.925 --> 00:03:44.825
how we approach reintegration and second chances in society.

82
00:03:45.455 --> 00:03:48.145
Instead of getting caught up in linguistic gymnastics,

83
00:03:48.525 --> 00:03:50.545
we need to focus on creating environments

84
00:03:50.545 --> 00:03:53.065
where people can demonstrate their current capabilities.

85
00:03:53.965 --> 00:03:55.865
So maybe the real conversation we need

86
00:03:55.865 --> 00:03:57.545
to be having isn't about language at all.

87
00:03:58.125 --> 00:03:59.505
That's the key insight here.

88
00:04:00.275 --> 00:04:03.305
While language plays a role, the study makes it clear

89
00:04:03.305 --> 00:04:06.785
that real change comes from creating concrete opportunities

90
00:04:07.205 --> 00:04:09.585
for people to build new lives and identities.

91
00:04:10.255 --> 00:04:12.545
It's about actions, not just words,

92
00:04:13.245 --> 00:04:15.545
and that's something every organization

93
00:04:15.645 --> 00:04:18.185
and community needs to consider as we move forward.

94
00:04:19.015 --> 00:04:21.105
Well, this certainly gives us a lot

95
00:04:21.105 --> 00:04:22.305
to think about when it comes to

96
00:04:22.305 --> 00:04:24.545
how we approach second chances in our society.

97
00:04:25.295 --> 00:04:26.995
And that's really what it comes down to.

98
00:04:27.535 --> 00:04:31.595
Moving beyond symbolic changes to create meaningful pathways

99
00:04:32.015 --> 00:04:33.115
for transformation.

100
00:04:34.195 --> 00:04:35.375
The research shows us

101
00:04:35.645 --> 00:04:39.095
that sometimes the best thing we can do is simply let

102
00:04:39.095 --> 00:04:41.415
people's achievements speak for themselves.

Rethinking Person-First Language in Employment

00:00:02 - Person first language, you know, saying person with a conviction instead of criminal. It's supposed to reduce stigma and help people rebuild their lives. But groundbreaking research shows this well-intentioned approach might actually be making things worse. Welcome to the Faculty Law and Society podcast. That's fascinating and completely counterintuitive. What exactly did the researchers discover? Well, they found that when employers reviewed job applications, carefully constructed person first language,

00:00:38 - We are talking about roughly 70 million Americans, one in three adults who have some type of criminal record and face these barriers. Hold on. So you're saying that trying to be more sensitive with language could actually hurt someone's chances of getting hired? Exactly right. The study showed that when applications use neutral terms like candidate or applicant alongside strong credentials, employers responded much more positively than when they used

00:01:10 - You know what this reminds me of? It's like when you tell someone not to think about something and that's all they can focus on. That's exactly what's happening here. Every time we use person first language, even with good intentions, we're essentially highlighting the criminal record instead of letting it fade into the background. So what did the research show actually works better? Well, The data points to two key findings. First, positive credentials, like professional certifications

Beyond Language: Building New Identities

00:01:41 - made the biggest difference in employer perceptions. Second, and this is where it gets really interesting. When they combine these credentials with person first language, the positive effect often disappeared completely. Hmm. So it's almost like the careful language keeps drawing attention back to exactly what we're trying to move beyond. Right, and here's another surprising finding. They tested whether people would naturally adopt person first language after being exposed to it.

00:02:13 - The evidence showed people didn't consistently pick up the new terminology. That really challenges everything we've been taught about institutional language changes, doesn't it? It absolutely does, and it points to something much deeper. The need to create actual opportunities for people to build new identities through achievement, rather than just changing how we talk about their past. You know, this makes me think about recovery programs. At some point, people need to be seen

00:02:44 - That's such a powerful parallel. The research suggests that what really matters is giving people the chance to develop new master statuses through their current roles and achievements. It's about creating pathways for genuine transformation. So what should organizations actually do with this information? Well, the study recommends a two-pronged approach. First, focus on creating genuine opportunities for people to earn positive credentials, training programs,

Reevaluating Reintegration: From Language to Action

00:03:18 - Second, be strategic about language, acknowledge criminal records when necessary, but then shift quickly to neutral professional terms. That sounds like it would require a pretty significant shift in how organizations approach hiring and advancement. You Are right, and the implications go way beyond just hiring. This research challenges fundamental assumptions about how we approach reintegration and second chances in society.

00:03:48 - we need to focus on creating environments where people can demonstrate their current capabilities. So maybe the real conversation we need to be having isn't about language at all. That's the key insight here. While language plays a role, the study makes it clear that real change comes from creating concrete opportunities for people to build new lives and identities. It's about actions, not just words, and that's something every organization

00:04:39 - Well, this certainly gives us a lot to think about when it comes to how we approach second chances in our society. And that's really what it comes down to. Moving beyond symbolic changes to create meaningful pathways for transformation. The research shows us that sometimes the best thing we can do is simply let people's achievements speak for themselves.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Critical Questions and Answers

Research Summaries

Reframing Redemption: Public Use and Perceptions of Labeling Alternatives in Criminology

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼