One could attribute Earth’s spinning on its axis to Newton’s first law of motion. However, in the context of the advancement and progress of humanity, the honor is bestowed upon language instead. Without language, there would be no communication of ideas, complex systems and culture from one generation to the next.

Linguistic capacity has a strong influence on behavior. For example, take a 2-year-old with a limited vocabulary and a basic grasp of grammar. This state is all their emotional expression is confined to when they are attempting to communicate with their parents. Thus, the unintelligible tantrums, while tiring to an overwhelmed parent, are slightly more justifiable due to their undeveloped language.

It is clear that language is the symbolic bridge between humans and culture. Language seen on social media posts, heard in small talk with strangers, news shows, advertisements and even the subtitles of movies shapes the beliefs, values and traditions humans hold. The usage of certain words and phrases that exist uniquely in each language regulate how different groups of humans think and, therefore, culture as well. To add even more nuance, there are behaviors within language. Consider sugarcoating.

Sugarcoating involves warping and presenting harsh information in a more pleasant light. This common speech pattern is usually seen in uncomfortable situations. It makes news more digestible and less awkward for the speaker.

For example, to sugarcoat the phrase: “You don’t look good in that dress,” one may instead say “There may be other dresses that you could try on.”

By shifting the focus to other subjects, sugarcoating softens the message the speaker is trying to get across. Though it seems nicer, camouflaging the original language ironically means no effective communication took place, though. Sugarcoating isn’t simply phrasing information in a better way, but rather a manipulation of language that completely retracts the intent of the message.

So, why does this ambiguous speech pattern still exist? There is one study that demonstrates many potential answers to this question.

In 2016, researchers conducted a study in which undergraduate students had to rate four brands of jeans based on four characteristics: style, wash, price and ethical practices, including if the company utilized child labor. However, these subjects could choose to see only two of four features. This resulted in 85% of students who did not elect to see the ethical practices of the companies that made the jeans. Moreover, students who decided to remain ignorant made belittling comments about the participants who opted to learn about the manufacturers’ child labor policies. In a previous study, shoppers agreed that they would rather remain unaware of a company’s ethical practices if they weren’t directly told about their policies. These shoppers had no inclination to perform a quick internet search to reaffirm their suspicions.

Now, imagine this as a conversation between two people. The speaker is an app that displays the ethical practices of a company that produces a brand of jeans. The receiver is the consumer of the jeans. In real-world conversations, there is an automatic assumption on the part of the speaker that the receiver would rather “remain ignorant” than know the truth. In other words, it may be considered more polite to protect the dignity of the receiver, eliminate any awkwardness for the speaker and reduce the possibility of any unpleasant emotion. This is ironic considering that a better grasp on grammar and a larger database of words should lead to a wider range of emotional expression than a 2-year-old.

Alternatively, language acquisition is largely observational. While developing their own language skills, children closely watch and imitate their family’s speech patterns. These behaviors can eventually be seen in adolescence and adulthood. Though the individual’s own experiences throughout their lifetime may alter the type of jargon they use, sugarcoating may be acquired simply by observing how others phrase their words.

Now that we have covered the possible reasons sugarcoating exists, who are the types of individuals to partake in it?

In workplace settings, some in leadership positions may change their honest, harsh feedback about an employee’s work to decrease potential conflict, keep the tensions at bay and to keep the friendly, relaxed work environment. In a study, researchers discovered that mothers preferred doctors who used a more nonalarmist, indirect approach in their communication when discussing the possibility of their child having a developmental delay. If you widen the lens, certain cultures will even have values that imply what type of language to use toward others. For instance, in works by Japanese scholars that have been translated into English, ideal communication is when the meaning is implied rather than stated in a straightforward manner.

This doesn’t account for all the people who do it, which begs the question if sugarcoating is a cultural phenomenon or based on individual behavior.

In language, sugarcoating is an adaptive behavior that depends on the culture of an environment. To reiterate, culture dictates the values and guidelines that become the norm of a certain place, which then affects the behavior of the individuals there. Each environment—the workplace, the mall, the hospital, one’s own home—is its own cultural arena. Thus, the language used changes depending on what cultural hub one finds themselves in.

Language emphasizes what is important. In some situations, sugarcoating prevents tensions from rising. In other circumstances, the message needs to be delivered as effectively and quickly as possible. Even though we use the same grammar system and have access to similar vocabulary, it can still be frustrating to adapt to those with different communication styles, whether it be direct communication or beating around the bush. Instead of throwing a tantrum, though, just look at what “culture” you are in and use language to find a good middle ground.