Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to outgroup descriptions that use person-first, as compared to identity-first, language can attenuate negative stereotypes or prejudice and enhance support for policies that seek to advance outgroup rights. However, those benefits of person-first language may not apply to all social groups equally. The present study examines a boundary condition of the effects of person-first language. Specifically, we postulate that person-first language reduces the stigmatization of outgroups to a lesser degree if individuals hold more important negative attitudes towards the respective communities. We will test this hypothesis in a two-factorial 2 (target group) x 2 (descriptor) online experiment that includes a control group and for which we will recruit a general-population sample (N = 681). Stereotyping, dehumanization, as well as negative affect and behavioral intentions towards two outgroups will be compared: people with a physical disability/the physically disabled (i.e., negative attitudes are expected to be less important) and people who have committed a violent crime/violent criminals (i.e., negative attitudes are expected to be more important). Our findings will bear implications for understanding when language use could influence public opinion of different social groups. Additionally, the research can inform the development of more effective communication policies to promote inclusion and reduce stigma.