{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021795989537925022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0017436791630340018, 'mean_word_length': 5.874251497005988, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Malevolence, stigma, and social distance: Maximizing intergroup differences in HIV/AIDS discourse

Abstract This study examined the intergroup language used by young heterosexual Australians in conversations about HIV/AIDS and safe sex. Sixty male and 72 female heterosexuals participated in four‐person facilitated conversations (same‐sex or mixed‐sex) about HIV/AIDS and safe sex, which were recorded and transcribed. We focused on extracts concerning strangers or malevolent individuals who appear to be group members, along with extracts involving foreign national groups. Discourse analysis showed that groups at lower levels of social distance were constructed mainly in terms of individual responsibility. At moderate social distance, stereotypes were more negative, but sub‐typing was common, whereas at the highest levels, people were constructed entirely in intergroup terms. The findings of this study suggest that HTV prevention programs should make reference to all salient outgroups, so as to neutralize communicative strategies that strengthen intergroup boundaries as a means of reducing perceived personal threat of HIV infection.