The use of more abstract language to describe expected behaviors as opposed to unexpected behaviors has traditionally been considered a way of stereotype maintenance. This tendency is known as linguistic expectancy bias. Two experiments examined the influence of approach and avoidance motivational orientations on the production of this linguistic expectancy bias. It was predicted that approach strategic orientation is likely to describe expectancy consistent behaviors at a higher level of linguistic abstraction than expectancy inconsistent behaviors. In contrast, avoidance strategic orientation is likely to describe both expectancy consistent behaviors and expectancy inconsistent behaviors at a lower level of linguistic abstraction, thus facilitating the disappearance of linguistic expectancy bias. Two experiments confirmed these expectations, using strategic orientation manipulations based either on communication goals or on motor action, and measuring linguistic abstraction either on forced-choice answer format or on free descriptions. Implications for the generalisation of linguistic expectancy bias are discussed.

Design Fluency (DF) is typically assumed to assess planning, cognitive flexibility, and fluency in generation of visual patterns, above and beyond contributions from motor speed (Delis, Kaplan, & Kramer, 2001; Ruff, 1998). The present study examined these assumptions, as little construct validation research has been done in the past. Sixty one community-dwelling elderly participants were administered the DF, Trail Making, and Letter Fluency tests from the Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS), as well as electronically administered measures of motor planning and motor sequence fluency. Hierarchical regressions were used to parse out unique variance contributions to DF performance. The results showed that generation of novel designs (i.e., the first two trials on the D-KEFS DF) relied primarily on motor planning, the ability to generate novel motor actions, and, to a lesser extent, speed of drawing with a writing implement. In contrast, generation of unique designs while switching (i.e., the third trial on the D-KEFS DF) relied primarily on visual scanning and perhaps visual-attentional resources. These findings highlight the wisdom of interpreting the switching trial of the D-KEFS DF separately. Interestingly, cognitive flexibility did not contribute to performance on any of the three D-KEFS DF trials. (JINS, 2010, 16, 26–37.)