Hubbry Logo
CondescensionCondescensionMain
Open search
Condescension
Community hub
Condescension
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Condescension
Condescension
Condescension
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Condescension or condescendence is a form of incivility wherein the speaker displays an attitude of patronizing superiority or contempt. Condescension "is associated with a patronizing attitude, and with other negative words such as divisive, heartless, arrogant, high-handed, [and] dictatorial".[1] The use of condescending language "can derail conversations and, over time, disrupt healthy communities".[2]

Etymology

[edit]

The meaning of the word has evolved over time. In the eighteenth century, condescension or condescending denoted a positive characteristic of a person of superior breeding, class, or some other superior set of characteristics lowering themselves to speak kindly to an inferior. By the nineteenth century, the word had developed a negative connotation, as evidenced by Charles Dickens in Dombey and Son, where a character is described in contrasting terms as "a little condescending, but extremely kind".[1] "In eighteenth-century prose, it is therefore common to find the word condescension qualified by adjectives such as generous, good, kind, humble, and particularly affable. This last word shows that condescension had become an index not only of ethical practice, but also of personality".[3]

This changed in the Victorian era, when "the belief in a constructive condescension largely fell away, and the word itself (with exceptions) was given over to its negative connotations. Condescension came primarily to signify self-promotion at another's cost; to condescend was to assert one's own superiority in a way that degraded others".[3]

See also

[edit]
Look up condescension or condescend in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Condescension

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Condescension is an interpersonal attitude or involving the patronizing treatment of others as intellectually or socially inferior, often manifested through a superior tone, oversimplification of ideas, or unsolicited explanations assuming incompetence. Etymologically, the term derives from condescensio (stem of condescensionem), denoting the voluntary act of descending to the level of those deemed lower in status, which originally implied gracious rather than disdain but evolved by the into its modern sense amid critiques of hierarchical social norms. In social and psychological contexts, condescension frequently arises in power imbalances, such as workplaces or academic settings, where it signals dominance but erodes trust and by implying recipient inadequacy. Empirical studies indicate that exposure to condescending communication—forms like interruptions or competence-questioning explanations—triggers heightened negative emotional responses and stress, with women often experiencing amplified effects compared to men due to intersecting social expectations. Such also incurs relational costs, including reduced in recipients and cycles of retaliation or withdrawal, as seen in analyses of patronizing aid toward those with disabilities, which undermines despite benevolent intent. Longitudinally, childhood experiences of condescending treatment amid economic hardship predict diminished self-rated health in adulthood, highlighting its enduring causal impact on .

Definition and Etymology

Core Definition

Condescension denotes a patronizing attitude or in which an individual treats others as intellectually or socially inferior, often through subtle expressions of superiority such as dismissive tones, oversimplified explanations, or unsolicited advice implying incompetence. This form of interaction conveys or arrogance, positioning the condescending party as elevated while diminishing the recipient's agency or knowledge. Psychologically, condescension functions as a demeaning communication rooted in perceived , where the speaker talks down to others to assert dominance or mask insecurities, frequently involving behaviors like interrupting, correcting trivial matters, or using phrases that undermine the other's perspective. It differs from mere by its implicit claim to benevolence or expertise, which amplifies the belittling effect; for instance, offering "help" in a manner that highlights the recipient's supposed inadequacy. In interpersonal dynamics, condescension erodes mutual respect and can provoke or withdrawal, as recipients often detect the underlying disdain even when veiled as concern. Empirical observations in link it to traits like or , where the condescending individual compensates for personal vulnerabilities by elevating their status relative to others. Unlike overt , its subtlety makes it insidious, relying on contextual cues like expressions or vocal to reinforce the power imbalance.

Historical Semantic Shift

The term "condescension" derives from the condescensionem, the noun of action from condescendere, meaning "to stoop down" or "come down together," composed of com- ("with" or "together") and descendere ("to descend"). This entered English in the 1640s, initially denoting a voluntary descent from one's superior rank or dignity to engage graciously with inferiors, often viewed as an act of benevolence or . In usage, particularly from the 17th to early 19th centuries, "condescension" retained a predominantly positive , emphasizing and on the part of the higher-status . For instance, the records its application as "courtesy to inferiors" or "affability to those of lower rank," reflecting a hierarchical where such "stooping" was praised as virtuous. Literary examples abound, such as in Jane Austen's (1813), where the obsequious Mr. Collins lauds Lady Catherine de Bourgh's "condescension" in visiting his humble parish, interpreting her attention as a flattering waiver of her aristocratic superiority rather than an insult. This sense aligned with the verb condescend, attested as early as 1340 in texts like the Ayenbite of Inwyt, where it implied yielding or agreeing deferentially without loss of inherent dignity. The semantic shift toward a meaning—implying patronizing superiority or disdainful tolerance—occurred gradually during the , driven by changing social norms that eroded rigid class hierarchies and heightened sensitivity to implied inequality. As egalitarian ideals spread, particularly post-Enlightenment and amid industrial-era mobility, recipients of such "gracious" interactions increasingly perceived the act as insincere or belittling, inverting the term's valence from noble to arrogant . By the late , dictionaries like those referenced in 's historical notes began documenting the negative sense alongside the original, with full dominance of the derogatory connotation by the early in usage. This mirrors broader linguistic patterns where terms denoting hierarchical accommodation acquire negative freight in democratizing societies, as evidenced in parallel shifts for words like "patronize."

Psychological Mechanisms

Roots in Envy and Perceived Superiority

Condescension often manifests as a psychological defense against envy, wherein individuals express patronizing superiority to diminish the perceived value of others' achievements or qualities that provoke resentment. Envy, characterized by painful awareness of another's advantage coupled with the desire to possess it, prompts behaviors that spoil or devalue the envied object, reducing the emotional disparity. Clinical observations indicate that such devaluation appears as disdainful attitudes, where the envious party adopts a veneer of superiority to efface the threat posed by the superior other. This dynamic aligns with patterns in narcissistic traits, where pathological correlates with contemptuous and condescending expressions aimed at undermining ' success. Low self-worth underlying may masquerade as bravado or condescension, fostering interpersonal tension without direct confrontation. Empirical links suggest malicious , distinct from benign forms that motivate self-improvement, drives antagonistic devaluations including condescension, often intertwined with Machiavellian or psychopathic tendencies. Perceived superiority further roots condescension in compensatory mechanisms, where exaggerated self-belief in one's abilities serves to counter underlying insecurities or inferiority feelings. A involves inflated perceptions of personal significance, leading to behaviors like boastfulness or unwillingness to recognize others' merits, which manifest as condescending interactions. This overcompensation, as described in psychological frameworks, equates to "better than others" to evade genuine feelings of inadequacy, with condescension as a key outward sign. Such patterns are not mere personality quirks but traceable to distorted self-perceptions, where the drive for dominance belies toward those who highlight personal shortcomings.

Associated Cognitive Biases and Behaviors

Condescension is frequently linked to the illusory superiority bias, wherein individuals overestimate their own competence relative to others, fostering a patronizing demeanor toward those perceived as inferior. This bias manifests when people rate themselves above average in skills or knowledge, leading to behaviors that dismiss or belittle others' input, as evidenced in studies where participants consistently self-assess higher than objective metrics warrant. The Dunning-Kruger effect, a related metacognitive distortion, amplifies this by causing low-competence individuals to exhibit undue confidence, often expressing condescension through unsolicited advice or corrections, while competent individuals may underestimate their edge and appear less arrogant. Empirical data from experiments show that those in the bottom of performance inflate self-evaluations by up to 50%, correlating with interpersonal friction interpreted as superiority signaling. Confirmation bias reinforces condescending patterns by prompting selective attention to evidence affirming one's superiority, such as recalling instances where others erred while ignoring personal shortcomings. In social interactions, this leads to a cycle where the condescending party curates interactions to validate their elevated self-view, discounting contradictory feedback, as observed in longitudinal studies of where biased information processing sustains hierarchical attitudes. , another associated distortion, involves projecting one's perspective onto others, assuming universal understanding and thus simplifying explanations patronizingly, rooted in findings that adults retain child-like failures to fully perspective-take. Behavioral indicators of condescension include verbal tactics like excessive simplification of concepts ("Let me explain this simply"), interruptive corrections, and qualifiers such as "obviously" or "you know," which imply the recipient's inadequacy. Nonverbal cues encompass , sighing, or averted gazes during others' speech, signaling impatience with perceived inferiority, as documented in observational analyses of conversational dominance where such gestures correlate with reduced listener engagement. In professional settings, behaviors like mansplaining—elaborating on topics the listener already masters—emerge from overconfidence, with surveys indicating 60% of women report experiencing it from male colleagues, though the phenomenon transcends gender when driven by status-seeking. These actions often stem from underlying insecurity masked as expertise, prompting defensive superiority to avoid vulnerability, per clinical observations in narcissistic personality traits.

Social and Interpersonal Dynamics

Manifestations in Daily and Professional Interactions

Condescension manifests in daily interactions through subtle communicative acts that signal perceived or social superiority, such as providing unsolicited explanations of basic concepts to competent adults or oversimplifying concepts for children in a patronizing manner assuming their incompetence, often termed "condescending explanations." These occur when a speaker conveys belief in their greater , leading recipients to perceive diminished competence. Interrupting others mid-sentence or dismissing their input without similarly undermines the interlocutor, fostering , particularly among women who report stronger negative reactions to such behaviors. In casual settings, like discussions or social gatherings, this may appear as at differing opinions or patronizing reassurances phrased as "don't worry your pretty little head," which trivializes concerns and reinforces . In environments, condescension frequently arises among peers during collaborative tasks, with condescending explanations reported as more common in incidents than in other contexts. Behaviors include snide remarks that belittle contributions, such as qualifying a colleague's idea with "that's cute, but actually," or using terms like "sweetheart" or "kiddo" in feedback, which erode trust and . scales explicitly measure condescension through items like "coworkers put you down or are condescending to you," linking it to reduced and heightened stress. Superiors may exhibit it via over-explaining routine procedures to experienced subordinates, while subordinates might counter with passive interruptions, both perpetuating cycles of resentment documented in organizational research. Such patterns contribute to broader dynamics where recipients internalize self-doubt, with empirical data showing correlations to decreased and in teams.

Political and Ideological Expressions

In political discourse, condescension frequently emerges when advocates of one attribute opposing views to , backwardness, or moral deficiency rather than engaging substantive arguments, often rooted in the speaker's perceived or ethical . This dynamic has been documented in U.S. elections, where urban, highly educated elites have dismissed rural or working-class voters' preferences as irrational. For example, in April 2008, then-Senator described small-town and Midwest residents as "bitter" individuals who "cling to guns or or antipathy to people who aren't like them" due to economic frustrations, framing their as a compensatory rather than a reasoned stance. Similarly, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary labeled half of Donald Trump's supporters a " of deplorables," portraying them as irredeemably bigoted and unworthy of , which alienated segments of the electorate and contributed to perceptions of coastal liberal disdain. Such expressions exacerbate polarization by reinforcing group identities over , with empirical linguistic analyses identifying patronizing and condescending language (PCL) as a subtle mechanism in political that assumes audience inferiority. Post-2024 reflections from within the Democratic Party highlight this: Senator attributed losses among male voters to party messaging that insulted and condescended by prioritizing identity-based appeals over economic concerns, stating that Democrats treated men as if their priorities were obsolete. Ideologically, this pattern aligns with a progressive tradition of viewing conservative or populist positions as evidence of or emotional deficit, driven by higher average among liberals, which fosters an unexamined assumption of epistemic superiority. Conversely, condescension appears across the spectrum, though less frequently attributed to conservatives in public discourse; for instance, in 2018, reports noted Donald Trump's remarks belittling subsets of his own supporters, such as calling some attendees at rallies "animals" in context or questioning their loyalty, which suggested paternalistic dismissal of base enthusiasm as naive. Psychologically, ideological condescension often masks of the target's authenticity or resilience, manifesting as patronizing advice or dismissal to preserve the condescender's of enlightenment. In broader ideological conflicts, such as European versus establishment views, similar dynamics occur, with cosmopolitan elites framing nationalist sentiments as parochial, further entrenching mutual distrust without resolving underlying causal factors like economic displacement.

Historical Context

Pre-Modern and Early Modern Conceptions

In pre-modern , condescension primarily denoted God's gracious accommodation to human frailty, enabling and despite the infinite gap between divine perfection and human imperfection. This conception, rooted in scriptural interpretations of the —where the eternal Son "emptied himself" (Philippians 2:7)—portrayed divine condescension as an act of profound and , not diminishment of essence but voluntary self-lowering for humanity's benefit. Patristic writers, such as in his homilies on the Gospel of John (c. 390–407 CE), emphasized this as God's "stooping down" to elevate mortals, framing it as the foundation of covenantal relationship rather than superiority asserted through distance. Medieval theologians extended this divine model to analogical human virtues, where condescension signified rulers or benevolently engaging inferiors without compromising , akin to a parent's guidance of children. , in the (1265–1274), alluded to such dynamics in discussions of and , implying that true involves descending to the level of the weak to instruct or aid, preserving order through compassionate superiority rather than aloof dominance. This view aligned with feudal social structures, where noble "condescension" manifested as or almsgiving, reinforcing paternalistic bonds without implying modern notions of patronizing disdain. Entering the (c. 1500–1800), condescension retained its positive valence in both theological and secular discourse, evolving into a social ideal of courteous equality extended downward by the elite. The term, borrowed into English around 1640 from condescensio (meaning "stooping together" or gracious agreement), initially described voluntary to inferiors as a mark of , as seen in royal or aristocratic interactions. Protestant reformers like , in his (1536), upheld divine condescension as the archetype for human conduct, urging believers to emulate Christ's humility in dealings with the lowly, thus linking it to ethical piety amid humanism's emphasis on dignified interpersonal relations. In literature, such as Edmund Spenser's (1590–1596), princely characters exemplify condescension as noble forbearance, blending chivalric with theological grace to foster without erosion of rank. This period marked condescension's broadening from strictly divine to interpersonal realms, yet it remained untainted by connotations until the late .

Modern Cultural Interpretations

In contemporary Western societies, condescension is frequently interpreted as a subtle assertion of social dominance in environments that nominally reject explicit hierarchies, often manifesting through paternalistic language or assumptions of intellectual inferiority. Political analysts have highlighted its role in elite discourse, where urban, educated classes patronize rural or working-class voters by framing their preferences as products of or manipulation rather than reasoned choice; for example, Barack Obama's remark about small-town Americans "clinging to guns or or antipathy toward people who aren't like them" was cited as emblematic of this dynamic, contributing to perceptions of disconnect that influenced subsequent elections like . Similarly, Hillary Clinton's characterization of Trump supporters as a " of deplorables" underscored how such attitudes alienate constituencies, reflecting a broader cultural where progressive elites attribute opposing views to —a Marxist-derived concept implying manipulated perceptions—rather than engaging substantive arguments. Cultural critiques extend this to historical retrospection, where modern interpretations apply a condescending lens to pre-20th-century values, dismissing Victorian emphases on and moral discipline as quaint or repressive; historian argued in 1987 that this "enormous condescension of posterity" overlooks empirical evidence of social stability under those norms, such as lower crime rates and family cohesion in 19th-century Britain compared to later decades. In media and academia, which exhibit documented left-leaning biases in topic selection and framing—evidenced by surveys showing over 80% of U.S. journalists identifying as Democrats or independents leaning left—condescension appears in narratives portraying traditionalist positions on issues like or roles as backward, prioritizing ideological signaling over of socioeconomic . Interpersonally, 21st-century frames condescension as a low-effort status maintenance strategy, particularly in diverse workplaces, where patronizing "help" toward minorities or subordinates—such as unsolicited advice assuming incompetence—undermines and fosters ; studies on patronizing aid to people with disabilities, for instance, demonstrate that rejecting it risks labels of "ungrateful," perpetuating dependency cycles absent in merit-based interactions. Cross-culturally, individualistic societies like the U.S. perceive such behaviors as belittling more acutely than collectivist ones, where they may align with hierarchical norms, highlighting how egalitarian ideals paradoxically amplify condescension's sting by eroding tolerance for perceived superiority. This interpretation aligns with views of it as an adaptive signal of relative fitness, maladapted in flattened social structures.

Consequences and Empirical Effects

Impacts on Individuals

Recipients of condescending or patronizing communication frequently report heightened and reduced perceptions of from the speaker. In experimental settings, such interactions lead observers to rate recipients as feeling less supported and less comfortable during the exchange. These responses align with broader patterns where patronizing speech evokes a sense of , particularly among women, prompting stress-like physiological and emotional reactions. Perceived condescension can diminish recipients' implicit , as it conveys underlying or superiority, triggering defensive psychological states. This effect manifests in interpersonal contexts, where targets may internalize attributions of incompetence, leading to self-doubt and hesitation in future contributions or expressions of opinion. Empirical data from workplace simulations indicate that women exposed to condescending explanations react with greater negativity, interpreting the behavior as competence-questioning and potentially biasing against their capabilities, which correlates with lowered and . Behaviorally, individuals facing repeated condescension may withdraw from interactions or exhibit as a compensatory response, though low-status recipients show muted aggression compared to peers. In social learning scenarios, excessive condescension from instructors hampers for learners, fostering dependency rather than and reinforcing cycles of perceived inferiority. For the condescending individual, such patterns may temporarily bolster a sense of superiority but erode relational trust over time, as recipients perceive the behavior as dismissive, limiting mutual . These dynamics underscore condescension's role in perpetuating interpersonal hierarchies at the expense of equitable exchange.

Broader Societal Outcomes

Condescension emanating from political and cultural elites has contributed to declining institutional trust and the surge in populist movements across Western democracies. In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Hillary Clinton's September 9, 2016, remark labeling half of Donald Trump's supporters a "basket of deplorables" was widely interpreted as condescending, alienating working-class voters and amplifying perceptions of elite disconnect, as reflected in post-election voter surveys showing heightened resentment toward establishment figures. Analogous patterns emerged in the United Kingdom's 2016 referendum, where pro-Remain elites' dismissive rhetoric toward Leave voters—often portraying them as uninformed or xenophobic—intensified class-based grievances, correlating with a 52% to 48% victory for Leave amid record turnout in deindustrialized regions. Such instances illustrate how condescension fosters a feedback loop of mutual , eroding faith in democratic institutions as lower-status groups perceive systemic disdain rather than substantive policy failures. Empirical studies highlight condescension's role in exacerbating educational and class divides, which undermine social cohesion. published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology in 2017 demonstrated that higher-educated individuals exhibit stronger negative biases toward lower-educated people compared to the reverse, a phenomenon termed "educationism" that manifests as patronizing attitudes and reinforces meritocratic illusions while ignoring structural barriers. This bias parallels condescension by implying intellectual inferiority, contributing to fragmented social networks and reduced cross-class cooperation, as evidenced by declining interpersonal trust metrics in societies with widening education gaps, such as the U.S. data from 1972 to 2022 showing trust levels dropping from 46% to 26%. Theoretical models of social learning further reveal condescension's aggregate harms, where agents undervaluing peers' information due to perceived superiority lead to inefficient collective decisions and errors. A 2024 analysis in Theoretical Economics found that mild condescension can marginally improve outcomes by encouraging information aggregation, but excessive levels—prevalent in hierarchical or polarized settings—result in worse equilibria than neutral or anti-condescendent approaches, mirroring societal dynamics where elite dismissals stifle and . In political contexts, this manifests as heightened polarization, with 2024 analyses attributing Democratic electoral setbacks to voter fatigue with perceived condescension over authentic engagement, preferring direct challenges to paternalistic explanations of grievances. Overall, unchecked condescension entrenches divisions, diminishing societal resilience against economic shocks and cultural shifts.

Identification and Mitigation

Behavioral Indicators

Condescending behavior manifests through verbal and nonverbal cues that signal perceived superiority or patronizing intent. Verbal indicators include unnecessary explanations of topics the recipient already understands, often termed "mansplaining" when directed at those with expertise, as observed in scenarios where a communicator disregards the listener's . Interruptions that disrupt the speaker's flow, particularly when repeated, convey dismissal of the other's competence. Voice nonrecognition, such as ignoring or rephrasing another's input without acknowledgment, further exemplifies this by implying inferiority. Patronizing speech patterns, like slowed enunciation or simplified language akin to addressing a , undermine the recipient's . Nonverbal indicators often accompany these verbal elements, reinforcing the superior posture. Elevated chin positions or looking down the nose project disdainful oversight. or averted gazes signal rejection of the speaker's validity, while sneers—characterized by an upper lip curl exposing teeth—express . Gestures such as finger steepling (fingertips pressed together) assert dominance, and backhanded waves or palm displays dismiss contributions outright. A disapproving or condescending tone, including exaggerated volume on key words, amplifies the demeaning effect, as evidenced in studies where such cues transmit subtly to observers. These behaviors are empirically linked to negative perceptions, with recipients attributing greater incompetence questioning to the communicator, particularly across lines in settings. Overuse of absolutes like "always" or "never" in critiques, or excessive corrections of minor details such as , heighten the sense of belittlement. delivered with a expression or backhanded compliments further erode mutual respect, often rooted in the communicator's insecurity rather than factual superiority. In aggregate, these indicators erode interpersonal trust, with empirical data showing heightened frustration and bias attributions among targeted individuals.

Effective Countermeasures

Assertiveness training programs have demonstrated effectiveness in equipping individuals to handle condescending interactions by enhancing communication skills and reducing associated stress. A 2024 study found that such significantly lowered anxiety, stress, and depression levels among participants exposed to interpersonal conflicts, enabling more confident boundary-setting without . In contexts, assertiveness interventions improved and interpersonal efficacy, allowing professionals to address patronizing behaviors directly while maintaining professional relations. These programs typically involve scenarios, to challenge submissive tendencies, and practice in expressing needs clearly, with meta-analyses confirming moderate to strong effects on outcomes. Directly addressing condescending remarks with calm, firm statements—such as restating one's position or questioning the tone—can neutralize patronizing intent without escalation. recommends selecting key instances for , phrasing responses to highlight the (e.g., "I appreciate the input, but I feel that tone implies I lack understanding"), which sets boundaries and preserves professional standing. on patronizing help indicates that reduces the perceived appropriateness of such but may invite backlash, particularly for individuals with visible disabilities like blindness, where responders are rated as ruder; thus, timing and matter, with allies or preparatory education mitigating risks. Maintaining composure and employing responses, such as acknowledging the input while redirecting to facts, diminishes the emotional impact of condescension. Studies on patronizing speech show that non-confrontational strategies, like collaborative reframing, lower the offender's perceived superiority and foster more effectively than passive acceptance or . In workplaces, documenting patterns of condescension and escalating to supervisors or HR when persistent ensures , as repeated incidents correlate with eroded team productivity and individual morale. Building intrinsic self-confidence through cognitive techniques, such as reframing condescension as a reflection of the patronizer's insecurities rather than personal inadequacy, prevents internalization of the behavior. Psychological interventions emphasizing have shown that individuals trained in this approach report fewer long-term effects from patronizing encounters, with reduced rumination and heightened resilience in subsequent interactions. Disengagement from non-essential relationships exhibiting chronic condescension preserves mental resources, as prolonged exposure empirically links to heightened responses and diminished performance.

References

  1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension
  2. https://www.etymonline.com/word/condescension
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/victorian-literature-and-culture/article/failure-of-condescension/0218EB1BC11685EA69BC4F4D16BC4182
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9838290/
  5. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/03/let-me-mansplain-studies-reveal-negative-impacts-of-behaviour
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7316393/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5441006/
  8. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/condescension
  9. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/condescension
  10. https://click2pro.com/blog/condescending-behavior-psychology
  11. https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/condescending.html
  12. https://professionalleadershipinstitute.com/resources/condescending/
  13. https://www.verywellmind.com/how-do-you-deal-with-a-partner-who-is-condescending-7484593
  14. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/envy/201212/condescension-is-manifest-envy
  15. https://integrative-psych.org/resources/navigating-condescension-in-the-workplace-strategies-for-a-respectful-environment
  16. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/condescension_n
  17. https://grammarphobia.com/blog/2010/05/lady-catherines-condescension.html
  18. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/condescend_v
  19. https://www.merriam-webster.com/word-matters-podcast/episode-36-condescension
  20. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/485425/austens-usage-of-the-word-condescension
  21. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/blog/envy/201212/condescension-is-manifest-envy
  22. https://psychcentral.com/blog/recovering-narcissist/2017/08/5-ways-pathologically-envious-narcissists-undermine-your-success
  23. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-cultural-competence/202004/5-telltale-signs-that-youre-the-target-of-envy
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5843025/
  25. https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/what-is-a-superiority-complex
  26. https://www.verywellhealth.com/superiority-complex-7374764
  27. https://www.verywellmind.com/superiority-complex-causes-characteristics-and-coping-7095818
  28. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/superiority-complex
  29. https://www.scienceofpeople.com/condescending-body-language/
  30. https://www.yourtango.com/self/behaviors-condescending-people-everyone-hates
  31. https://www.hrmonline.com.au/section/strategic-hr/5-types-of-patronising-behaviour-at-work/
  32. https://managebetter.com/blog/how-to-deal-with-a-condescending-employee
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9774467/
  34. https://hbr.org/2024/02/how-to-deal-with-a-condescending-colleague
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/27/opinion/sunday/the-dumb-politics-of-elite-condescension.html
  36. https://aclanthology.org/2022.nlp4pi-1.15.pdf
  37. https://nypost.com/2024/11/30/us-news/john-fetterman-says-democrats-lost-male-voters-by-insulting-them-being-condescending/
  38. https://www.aei.org/articles/why-are-liberals-so-condescending/
  39. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/08/examples-are-piling-up-president-trumps-condescension-toward-parts-his-base/
  40. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252819843_Critical_Discourse_Analysis_and_the_Discourse_of_Condescension
  41. https://rsc.byu.edu/shedding-light-new-testament/condescension-god-according-paul
  42. https://credomag.com/2012/04/god-with-us-divine-condescension-and-the-attributes-of-god/
  43. https://www.gotquestions.org/accommodation-condescension.html
  44. https://reformedforum.org/covenantal-condescension/
  45. https://www.etymonline.com/word/condescending
  46. https://capx.co/victorian-values-and-twentieth-century-condescension
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21224751_Evaluative_perceptions_of_patronising_speech_addressed_to_elders
  48. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0261927X960153004
  49. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201912/does-your-partner-patronize-you
  50. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10869-022-09871-7
  51. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367461771_The_Hazards_and_Benefits_of_Condescension_in_Social_Learning
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103116305509
  53. https://www.al.com/opinion/2024/11/cameron-smith-americans-prefer-republican-offense-to-democratic-condescension.html
  54. https://www.washington.edu/news/2016/12/21/study-children-can-catch-social-bias-through-non-verbal-signals-expressed-by-adults/
  55. https://www.entrepreneur.com/living/10-behaviors-people-find-condescending/346238
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1930761/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11392326/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8242798/
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16953125/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.