Featured Post from Aston University

The use of swear words declines by more than a quarter in the UK since the 1990s – new research

Aug 23, 2021

3 min



  • Aston University’s Dr Robbie Love compared the use of 16 of the most common swear words between 1994 and 2014
  • He found the amount of swearing has fallen by 27.6 per cent during the 13-year period
  • The study also found that the f-word has overtaken 'bloody' as UK's most popular curse word


Researchers from Aston University have found that the use of swear words in Britain has declined by more than a quarter since the 1990s. Dr Robbie Love, based in the College of Business and Social Sciences, looked at how swearing changed in casual British English conversation between 1994 and 2014.


As part of the study, which is published in Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, Dr Love used two large bodies of transcriptions to analyse the use of language, including: The Spoken British National Corpus gathered in 1994 and the same corpus from 2014. Both texts include over 15 million words, although it was found that swear words accounted for less than one per cent.


In total, the amount of swearing was found to have fallen by 27.6 per cent, from 1,822 words per million in 1994 to 1,320 words per million in 2014.The research findings also suggest that the f-word has overtaken 'bloody' as the most popular curse word in the UK.


In the study, Dr Love compared the use of 16 of the nation's most common swear words, including p***, c*** and s**g, from the 1990s to the 2010s.


He also found that trends in the type of swear words used have changed over the last few decades , with 'bloody' being the most common curse word in the 1990s and the f-word taking precedent in the 2010s.


The analysis suggests that this is largely down to a big decline in the use of 'bloody',while the f-word has remained relatively steady over the years. It was also found to be the second most commonly used swear word in 1994, followed by s**t, p***, b****r and c**p.


Other key findings of the study included:


Over a twenty year period b****r had fallen from the fifth most common curse to the ninth, while b*****d dropped from seventh to 10th.

The big climbers include s**t, from third to second, a**e, from eighth to sixth and d***, from tenth to seventh.

T**t also rose from the 16th most common swear word in the 1990s to 13th by the 2010s.

Dr Love then analysed demographics and discovered that, although swearing is more common in men than women, the difference between the genders has decreased notably from 2.33 times more frequent in men in 1994 to 1.68 times in 2014.


Another change concerned how much people swear as they age. In both data sets, swearing is most common among people in their 20s, and then declines with age. However, the decline was less steep in the 2010s, suggesting that people continue swearing later in life more than they did in the 1990s.


Dr Robbie Love, lecturer in English at Aston University, said:


“This research reinforces the view that swearing plays a part in our conversational repertoire, performs useful functions in everyday life and is an everyday part of conversation for many people.


“Despite this, it is relatively under-researched precisely because it is considered to be taboo.


“Swearing performs many social functions including conveying abuse and humour, expressing emotion, creating social bonds, and constructing identity.


“The strong social conditioning around swear words makes them more psychologically arousing and more memorable than other words, and something different happens in the brain when saying them compared to euphemistic equivalents, such as saying "f***" compared to ‘the f-word’.”


You can read the full study, Text & Talk: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies, HERE


If you want to explore how the written and spoken word works in society, Aston University's innovative English language and literature degrees are for you. We emphasise practical applications, linking your studies to the real world through professionally relevant modules in areas such as Language and Literature in Education, The Language of the Law, Psychology of Language and Communication or Language at Work.

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

3 min

Putting least calorific meals first on menu makes teenagers more likely to order them according to a study co-led at Aston University

The research was carried out by the University of Birmingham’s Katie Edwards and Aston University’s Jackie Blissett and James Reynolds Both the availability of high-calorie options and their position on the menu affects teenagers’ choices Restaurants provide an important location for implementing low-cost and high-reach interventions to tackle obesity. New research from the University of Birmingham and Aston University has found that putting lower-calorie meal choices at the top of a restaurant menu, and reducing the availability of high-calorie options, makes teenagers more likely to order the healthier options. Childhood obesity rates have been increasing year on year, with government pledges and targets to reduce obesity unfulfilled or missed. Restaurants are a common food environment for adolescents, with one fifth of children consuming meals out at least once a week. The study has been published in the journal Appetite. Dr Katie Edwards, research fellow in psychology at the University of Birmingham and a visiting researcher at Aston University, who led the study, said: “Childhood obesity is a significant public health challenge. A key period for targeting dietary intervention is adolescence, when young people become more independent, making their own decisions about diet and socialising with friends more. Interventions have targeted healthy eating at home and at school, but we wanted to see how altering restaurant menus can impact the choices teenagers make.” The researchers asked 432 13 to 17-year-olds to take part in an online experiment. They presented the teenagers with three different menus, with five starters, ten main courses and five desserts in separate sections, as one would find on a standard restaurant menu. Each menu was slightly different; one which reduced the number of high-calorie options on offer, one with menu positioning of low- to high-calorie meals, one which combined the availability and position interventions, and then one ‘typical’ menu. The participants were asked to select a starter, main and dessert from each menu. The experiment showed that the availability and the position interventions resulted in significantly lower calorie meal choices, compared to the choices made from the menu with no intervention (the ‘typical’ menu). The average number of calories for a selected meal reduced from 2099.78 to 1992.13 when the items were ordered from least to highest calorie content. The availability intervention reduced it from 2134.26 kcal to 1956.18 kcal. The group who had the combined availability and positioning intervention menu saw their meals’ calorie value plummet from 2173.60 kcal to 1884.44 kcal. The study also found that the positioning intervention had the biggest impact on main course choices. The availability intervention and the combined interventions, on the other hand, did not have a big impact on the calorie value of main course choices. The availability intervention had the most impact on starter choices. None of the interventions had a significant impact on dessert choices. Dr Edwards said: “Main menu choices saw the biggest reduction in calories following the position intervention, going from 1104.17 kcal to 1045.16 kcal, while the availability intervention saw the biggest reduction in the starter option. While not all interventions saw statistically significant reductions for all courses, each intervention saw a significant reduction in the calorie content of the overall meals.” Dr James Reynolds, senior lecturer in psychology at Aston University, said: “People tend to consume higher calorie meals when they eat out, so restaurants provide an important location for implementing low-cost and high-reach interventions which can encourage healthier eating in teenagers. Many restaurants are already required to display calorie information on their menus, but our research has shown that tactics like altering the position or availability of high-calorie options on menus could also be a useful tool in trying to reduce obesity and help young people make healthier choices. The next step for this research would be to replicate the study in restaurant settings.” Read the full paper in the journal Appetite at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666324005749

4 min

People still trust scientists: Aston University psychologists contribute to largest post-pandemic study on public trust

Researchers looked at trust in scientists in 68 countries and found relatively high levels of trust everywhere The TISP Many Labs study of 71,922 people included those living in under-researched nations of the Global South The majority of survey participants believe that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. Public trust in scientists is still high, according to a survey carried out in 68 countries by an international team of 241 researchers, led by Dr Viktoria Cologna (Harvard University, ETH Zurich) and Dr Niels Mede (University of Zurich). The study found no evidence of the oft-repeated claim of a crisis of trust in science. The team, which included Aston University School of Psychology’s Dr James Reynolds and Dr Charlotte Pennington, also found that the majority of survey participants believed that scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking. This study is the result of the Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs study, a collaborative effort that allowed the authors to survey 71,922 people in 68 countries, including many under-researched countries in the ‘Global South’. For the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic, the study provides global, representative survey data on the populations and regions of the world in which researchers are perceived to be most trustworthy, the extent to which they should engage with the public and whether science is prioritising important research issues. Dr Mede said: “The study is the most comprehensive post-pandemic snapshot of trust in scientists, societal expectations of their involvement in society and policymaking and public views on research priorities.” Across 68 countries, the study finds that the majority of the public has a relatively high level of trust in scientists (mean trust level = 3.62, on a scale of 1 = very low trust to 5 = very high trust). The majority of respondents also perceive scientists as qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). However, the results also reveal some areas of concern. Globally, less than half of respondents (42%) believe that scientists pay attention to the views of others. Additionally, many people felt that the priorities of science are not always well-aligned with their own priorities. The researchers call upon scientists to take the results seriously and find ways to be more receptive to feedback and more open to dialogue. The findings confirm the results of previous studies that show significant differences between countries and population groups. In particular, people with right-wing political views in Western countries tend to have less trust in scientists than those with left-wing views. This suggests that attitudes toward science tend to polarise along political lines. In most countries, however, political orientation and trust in scientists were not related. A majority of respondents want science to play an active role in society and policymaking. Globally, 83% of respondents believe that scientists should communicate with the public about science, providing an impetus for increased science communication efforts. Only a minority (23%) believe that scientists should not actively advocate for specific policies. 52% believe that scientists should be more involved in the policymaking process. Participants gave high priority to research to improve public health, solve energy problems and reduce poverty. On the other hand, research to develop defence and military technology was given a lower priority. In fact, participants explicitly believe that science is prioritising the development of defence and military technology more than they would like, highlighting a potential misalignment between public and scientific priorities. Dr Cologna said: “Our results show that most people in most countries have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to play an active role in society and policymaking”. Dr Reynolds, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This research demonstrates that people from all around the globe still have high trust in science and want scientists involved in policymaking. When we face great challenges, such as threats to public health or energy crises, the public recognise the importance that scientists can play and want us involved. This is also true of the UK where levels of public trust in science is one of the highest globally.” Dr Pennington, a senior lecturer at Aston University School of Psychology, said: “This project showcases the importance and power of big team science to answer fundamental questions about human behaviour. By pooling our expertise and resources, we were able to reach over 70,000 people and improve sample diversity and representation by recruiting from 68 countries. Overall, the study resulted in an optimistic finding – that people generally trust scientists and agree that they should engage more in society and policymaking. Such trust is important because it allows people to make research-informed decisions about their own lives.” Find out more about the research in Nature Human Behaviour by visiting https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02090-5.

4 min

Aston University-led project finds simple ways to improve the wellbeing of paediatric critical care staff

The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project was carried out in conjunction with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England Paediatric critical care (PCC) staff experience high levels of moral distress, post-traumatic stress disorder and burnout Two simple, low-resource wellbeing sessions can be delivered by staff for staff without specialist training. The Staff Wellbeing (SWell) project, led by Aston University researchers in collaboration with Birmingham Children’s Hospital and NHS England, has developed two simple, easy-to-deliver sessions to improve the wellbeing of staff in paediatric critical care (PCC) units in UK hospitals. PCC staff are known to experience high levels of moral distress, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and burnout, but often feel little is offered to help them with their mental health. The SWell team at Aston University, led by Professor Rachel Shaw from the Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment, realised following a literature review that there are no existing, evidence-based interventions specifically designed to improve PCC staff wellbeing. Initial work by SWell identified the ‘active ingredients’ likely to create successful intervention designs. Together with a team from NHS England, the Aston University researchers set up the SWell Collaborative Project: Interventions for Staff Wellbeing in Paediatric Critical Care, in PCC units across England and Scotland. The aim of the project was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of implementing wellbeing interventions for staff working in PCC in UK hospitals. In total, 14 of the 28 UK PCC units were involved. One hundred and four intervention sessions were run, attended by 573 individuals. Professor Shaw said: “The significance of healthcare staff wellbeing was brought to the surface during the COVID-19 pandemic, but it’s a problem that has existed far longer than that. As far as we could see researchers had focused on measuring the extent of the problem rather than coming up with possible solutions. The SWell project was initiated to understand the challenges to wellbeing when working in paediatric critical care, to determine what staff in that high-pressure environment need, and what could actually work day-to-day to make a difference. Seeing PCC staff across half the paediatric critical care units in the UK show such enthusiasm and commitment to make the SWell interventions a success has been one of the proudest experiences in my academic career to date.” The two wellbeing sessions tested are low-resource and low-intensity, and can be delivered by staff for staff without any specialist qualifications. In the session ‘Wellbeing Images’, a small group of staff is shown images representing wellbeing, with a facilitated discussion using appreciative inquiry - a way of structuring discussions to create positive change in a system or situation by focusing on what works well, rather than what is wrong. In the ‘Mad-Sad-Glad’ session, another small group reflective session, participants explore what makes them feel mad, sad and glad, and identify positive actions to resolve any issues raised. The key ingredients in both sessions are social support – providing a psychologically safe space where staff can share their sensitive experiences and emotions without judgement, providing support for each other; self-belief – boosting staff’s self-confidence and ability to identify and express their emotions in response to work; and feedback and monitoring – encouraging staff to monitor what increases their stress, when they experience challenging emotions, and what might help boost their wellbeing in those scenarios. Feedback from staff both running and participating in the SWell interventions was very positive, with high satisfaction and feasibility ratings. Participants like that the session facilitated open and honest discussions, provided opportunities to connect with colleagues and offered opportunities for generating solutions and support. One hospital staff member responsible for delivering the sessions said: “Our staff engaged really well, and it created a buzz around the unit with members of the team asking if they could be ‘swelled' on shift. A really positive experience and we are keeping it as part of our staff wellbeing package.” The team concluded that even on busy PCC units, it is feasible to deliver SWell sessions. In addition, following the sessions, staff wellbeing and depression scores improved, indicating their likely positive impact on staff. Further evaluations are needed to determine whether positive changes can be sustained over time following the SWell sessions. The work was funded by Aston University Proof of Concept Fund and NHS England. Donna Austin, an advanced critical care practitioner at University Hospital Southampton paediatric intensive care unit, said: “We were relatively new to implementing wellbeing initiatives, but we recognised the need for measures to be put in place for an improvement in staff wellbeing, as staff had described burnout, stress and poor mood. SWell has enabled our unit to become more acutely aware of the needs of the workforce and adapt what we deliver to suit the needs of the staff where possible. Staff morale and retention has been the greatest outcomes from us participating in the SWell study and ongoing SWell related interventions.” Read the paper about the SWell interventions in the journal Nursing in Critical Care at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nicc.13228. For more information about SWell, visit the website.

View all posts
Powered by