The Secret Life of Pronouns (41 page)

Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict.
Psychology and Aging
,
24
, 604–13.

Seih, Y., Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (In press). Experimental manipulations of perspective taking and perspective switching in expressive writing.
Cognition and Emotion
.

Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
,
54
, 558–68.

Semin, G. R., Rubini, M., & Fiedler, K. (1995). The answer is in the question: The effect of verb causality on the locus of explanation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
,
21
, 834–41.

Sexton, J. B., & Helmreich, R. L. (2000). Analyzing cockpit communications: The links between language, performance, and workload.
Human Performance in Extreme Environments
,
5
, 63–68.

Silver, R. C., & Wortman, C. B. (2007). The stage theory of grief.
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
,
297
, 2692.

Simmons, R. A., Chambless, D. L., & Gordon, P. C. (2008). How do hostile and emotionally overinvolved relatives view relationships? What relatives’ pronoun use tells us.
Family Process
,
47
, 405–19.

Simmons, R. A., Gordon, P. C., & Chambless, D. (2005). Pronoun use in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health?
Psychological Science
,
16
, 932–36.

Skillicorn, D. B. (2008).
Knowledge discovery for counterterrorism and law enforcement
. Toronto: CRC Press.

Slatcher, R. B., Chung, C. K., Pennebaker, J. W., & Stone, L. D. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates.
Journal of Research in Personality
,
41
, 63–75.

Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). How do I love thee? Let me count the words: The social effects of expressive writing.
Psychological Science
,
17
, 660–64.

Smith, A. G. (2008). The implicit motives of terrorist groups: How the needs for affiliation and power translate into death and destruction.
Political Psychology
,
29
, 55–75.

Sofer, D. O. (2003).
El Pueblo and La Rosca [electronic resource]: A political dialogue in Colombia, 1944–58
. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Libraries.

Spera, S. P., Buhrfeind, E. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1994). Expressive writing and coping with job loss.
Academy of Management Journal
,
37
, 722–33.

Stirman, S. W., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2001). Word use in the poetry of suicidal and non-suicidal poets.
Psychosomatic Medicine
,
63
, 517–22.

Stone, L. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Trauma in real time: Talking and avoiding online conversations about the death of Princess Diana.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
,
24
, 172–82.

Stone, P. J., Dunphy, D. C., & Smith, M. S. (1966).
The General inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Swann Jr., W. B., Gómez, A., Huici, C., Morales, F., & Hixon, J. G. (2010). Identity fusion and self-sacrifice: Arousal as catalyst of pro-group fighting, dying and helping behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
,
99
, 824–41.

Tannen, D. (1990).
You just don’t understand.
New York: William Morrow & Company.

Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2009). Leadership in informal groups: A linguistic investigation of Wikipedia. Presented at the annual meeting of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Las Vegas, NV, January.

_____
. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
,
29
, 24–54.

_____
. (2011). Predicting the quality of online mathematics contributions from users’ reputations.
Proceedings of the 2011 Conference for the Computer Human Interaction Society (CHI 2011).

Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007).
Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts.
Orlando, FL: Harcourt.

Taylor, P. J., & Thomas, S. (2008). Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome.
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
,
1
, 263–81.

Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in online dating profiles.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
,
34
, 1023–36.

Trivers, R. L. (2011).
Deceit and self-deception
. New York: Basic Books.

Vano, A. M. (2001).
Linguistic predictors of treatment success among female substance abusers
. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

Vano, A. M., & Pennebaker, J. W., (1997). Emotional vocabulary in bilingual Hispanic children: Adjustment and behavioral effects.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
,
16
, 191–200.

Vrij, A., & Mann, S. (2006). Criteria-Based Content Analysis: An empirical test of its underlying processes.
Psychology
,
Crime and Law
,
12
, 337–49.

Waldman, D. A., Ramirez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty.
Academy of Management Journal
,
44
, 134–43.

Wegner, D. M. (1989).
White bears and other unwanted thoughts: Suppression, obsession, and the psychology of mental control.
New York: Viking/Penguin.

Weiner, E. (2008).
The geography of bliss: One grump’s search for the happiest places in the world
. New York: Twelve.

Weintraub, W. (1981).
Verbal behavior: Adaptation and psychopathology
. New York: Springer.

_____
. (1989).
Verbal behavior in everyday life
. New York: Springer.

Weston, D. (2007).
The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation
. New York: Public Affairs.

Wicklund, R. A. (1975). Objective self-awareness.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
,
8
, 233–75.

Wierzbicka, A. (1997).
Understanding cultures through their key words.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, Timothy D. (2002).
Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive unconscious
. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Wilson, Timothy D. (2011).
Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change
. New York: Little, Brown.

Winter, D. G. (1998). A motivational analysis of the Clinton first term and the 1996 presidential campaign.
The Leadership Quarterly
,
9
, 367–76.

Winter, D. G., & McClelland, D. C. (1978). Thematic analysis: An empirically derived measure of the effects of liberal arts education.
Journal of Educational Psychology
,
70
, 8–16.

Wolf, M., Chung, C. K., & Kordy, H. (2010). Inpatient treatment to online aftercare: E-mailing themes as a function of therapeutic outcomes.
Psychotherapy Research
,
20
, 71–85.

_____
. (2010). MEM’s search for meaning: A rejoinder.
Psychotherapy Research
,
20
, 93–99.

Wolf, M., Horn, A. B., Mehl, M. R., Haug, S., Pennebaker, J. W., & Kordy, H. (2008). Computergestützte quantitative Textanalyse: Äquivalenz und Robustheit der deutschen Version des Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count [Computer-aided quantitative text analysis: Equivalence and robustness of the German adaption of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count].
Diagnostica
,
54
, 85–98.

Woods, K. M. (2007).
Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and terrorism: Emerging insights from captured Iraqi documents,
vols. 1. Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria, VA. www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html

Wright, A. (2009). Mining the web for feelings, not facts.
New York Times
, August 23. www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/technology/internet/24emotion.html

Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers.
Journal of Research in Personality
,
44
, 363–73.

Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Nunamaker, J. F., & Twitchell, D. (2004). Automating linguistics-based cues for detecting deception in text-based asynchronous computer-mediated communications.
Group Decision and Negotiation
,
13
, 81–106.

Zijlstra, H., van Meerveld, T., van Middendorp, H., Pennebaker, J. W., & Geenen, R. (2004). De Nederlandse versie van de Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), een gecomputeriseerd tekstanalyseprogramma [Dutch version of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), a computerized text analysis program].
Gedrag & Gezondheid
,
32
, 273–83.

A Handy Guide for Spotting and Interpreting Function Words in the Wild

D
IFFERENT FUNCTION WORDS can signal different psychological states. Pronouns, articles, prepositions, verbs, and emotion words provide different information about how people are thinking, feeling, and connecting with others. Feel free to tear out this Word Guide for use in all future settings where people are using language.

ATTENTIONAL FOCUS: PRONOUNS, VERB TENSE

Language tracks our focus of attention. We talk and write about objects, events, and people that are on our minds. A good rule of thumb is that people who pay a great deal of attention to other people tend to use personal pronouns at high rates. People who obsess about the past use past-tense verbs. Turning this observation upside down, by counting instances of pronoun and verb tense use, we can guess what naturally grabs people’s attention.

PERSONAL PRONOUNS

We probably spend more time thinking and talking about other people than anything else. If another person makes us exuberantly happy, furiously angry, or deeply sad, we often can’t stop thinking about him or her. We will often drop his or her name in our conversations with others, tossing in numerous pronouns as we refer to the person. Consequently, if the speaker is thinking and talking about a friend, expect high rates of third-person singular pronouns. If worried about communists, right-wing radio hosts, or bureaucrats, words such as
they
and
them
will be more frequent than average.

The word
I
is no different. If people are self-conscious, their attention flips to themselves briefly but at higher rates than people who are not self-conscious. For example, people use the word
I
more when completing a questionnaire in front of a mirror than if no mirror is present. If their attention is drawn to themselves because they are sick, feeling pain, or deeply depressed, they also use
I
more. In contrast, people who are immersed in a task tend to use I-words at very low levels.

VERB TENSE

Whereas personal pronouns provide information about the subject of attention, verb tense can tell us how people are thinking about time. Not surprisingly, when people think about the past, they use the past tense; when thinking about the future, they tend to use the future tense. More interesting is when people flip between tenses. For example, people suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (or PTSD) often have flashbacks of horrific events that they may have experienced months or years in the past. Here, a Vietnam veteran describes a terrifying night that occurred decades earlier:

We had used bulldozers to build … bunkers … to protect us from sporadic shelling. I could not sleep in the bunker (it was like a crypt). This night … we were getting incoming [mortar fire and] our platoon sergeant cracked, rolled himself up in the corner of the bunker and hysterically cried. I went outside to the top of the berm after the shelling stopped and waited. Shit. It was dark again. As we all sat there, sporadic ground fire would open up from time to time, and we would all send some rounds down … Maybe an hour later, I’m on top of the berm, looking out, and I feel his presence again. I keep staring, trying to see movement, but it’s too dark. I get up, run over to … ask for flares. I go back up top, staring, waiting for the illumination, none comes. I know he’s out there again and not alone … Obviously, I made it okay. I just can’t remember what happened next.

Notice how the author flips from the past tense to the present tense. The sergeant, the shelling, the gunfire all happened in the past. “Maybe an hour later, I’m on top of the berm …” The soldier is back in Vietnam and right in the middle of it. His verbs tell us how his mind is working—and that Vietnam continues to be an ongoing experience in his life.

SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND EMOTIONS: PRONOUNS, ARTICLES, EMOTION WORDS

Language in its most basic function is necessary for communication. Style words provide information about social processes that are integral to understanding others. They provide clues about who has more status, whether a group is working well together, if someone is being deceptive, and the quality of a close relationship

STATUS AND POWER

In virtually all groups of primates, the first order of business is to establish dominance and status. We humans, of course, are much more refined in the ways we approach this task. We usually don’t make threats on meeting others. Instead, we change our posture, our tone of voice, and the ways we use words. As discussed in chapter 7, status is quickly signaled by the use of pronouns—especially first- and second-person pronouns such as
I
,
we
, and
you
. Contrary to what most people think, high-status people tend to use
we
and
you
at high rates compared to lower-status individuals. And low-status individuals overuse
I
.

HONESTY AND DECEPTION

We also use function words differently when being honest than when lying. When telling the truth, we tend to “own” what we say. That is, truth-tellers are more likely to use words like
I
and
my.
When lying, we distance ourselves from what we are saying. President Bill Clinton’s claim that he didn’t have sexual relations “with that woman” is a startling example. “That” woman is certainly more distant than, say, “my woman” or simply “Monica.” We also think and talk in more complex ways when being truthful. As seen in chapter 6, lying is hard work. If we are having to invent a story that isn’t true, we avoid certain conjunctions (such as
but
and
or
), prepositions (
except
,
without
), and negations (
not
,
never
).

STRANGERS AND FRIENDS

People who are good friends and have a long history use language with each other in ways that are quite different from two strangers. Some language markers are obvious—people who like one another use the first-person plural (
we
,
us
, and
our
) more than strangers. They also use more positive and negative emotion words. People with a shared background are more likely to use the specific article
the
, as in “the chair,” since both have probably talked about that same damned chair for years. Strangers will initially talk about “a chair” or maybe “that chair,” especially in the early phase of their relationship.

THINKING STYLES: CONJUNCTIONS, PREPOSITIONS, NOUNS, VERBS, AND CAUSAL WORDS

You discover that your best friend’s spouse is having an affair. Should you tell your friend? Why or why not?

Questions such as this force people to think about complex topics that don’t have easy answers. People’s answers generally require a certain degree of logic, reasoning, and causal thinking. Unanticipated complex questions also require people to work through a problem. They often begin answering in one way and then adopt a different perspective to evaluate if their thinking makes sense. As people write about complex issues, their style words provide clues to the ways they are thinking in general.

Although there are dozens of ways to analyze thinking styles, three are particularly well suited to language analysis.

COMPLEX VERSUS SIMPLE THINKING

So your best friend’s spouse is having an affair. Ask a dozen people what they would do and you will get twelve different responses. However, some answers will reveal a much more complicated way of thinking:

Complex thinker:
First, what is the history of their relationship? If the couple has some preexisting agreement about extramarital relationships, then nothing needs to be said. What are the costs to my friend, the spouse, and to me for either talking about it or keeping it secret? If it had been the other way and it was my spouse that was having an affair, would I want to know from my friend? Unless the friend’s spouse is intentionally trying to hurt my friend, I would probably not say anything. But I really need more information to answer this question.

Simple thinker:
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. That’s my motto. What will happen with my friend will happen. I’ll keep my nose out of things. Out of sight, out of mind. Know what I mean?

Although the complex and simple thinker come to the same conclusion, the complex thinker weighs different options and looks at the problem from multiple angles. In addition, the complex thinker relies on reasoning, logic, and even emotional awareness. Note the language differences as well. Complex thinking generally involves bigger words, longer sentences, and more complicated sentences, often involving prepositions (
with
,
of
,
to
). Prepositions, by the way, are glorious language markers. They help to situate an idea in time and space.

Most important, a complex thinker makes distinctions. “The friend’s spouse had an affair but it is now over” is more complex than just “The spouse had an affair.” To make a distinction, speakers must tell us what is in a category and what is not in the category: “It’s this but not that.” In order to make distinctions, it is useful to draw on a set of words that we call exclusive words. Examples of exclusive words include
except
,
but
,
without
,
unless
, and a number of related prepositions and conjunctions.

And don’t forget if-then phrases, which lie at the heart of logical thinking. IF a person uses the word
if
, THEN, by definition, that person is making distinctions.

CAUSAL VERSUS NONCAUSAL THINKING

What are your thoughts about waking up with one of your legs amputated? I’ve asked hundreds of college students this question and the answers are mesmerizing. Some claim that it would be so devastating that they would consider suicide. Others shrug their shoulders and report that it wouldn’t change their life much at all. Yet others focus on why they walked between the cars and what made one of the cars roll backward.

All humans naturally engage in causal thinking. However, some of us engage in it more than others. Some people, for example, are obsessed with knowing why bad things have happened to them. Why did I walk between those cars? Why did I have to lose my leg? In a stunning series of studies, psychologists Camille Wortman and Roxanne Silver asked thousands of people how they have dealt with major upheavals in their lives—incest, death of a child, death of a spouse. In general, those who have a simple causal explanation of a terrible event cope quite well. Another group simply doesn’t look for a causal explanation and, they, too, cope well. The one group that has the most difficulty is made up of people who desperately seek answers to why the event occurred. They frequently ask, “Why did this happen?” and “Why me?” but never find an answer.

In most circumstances, causal thinking can be invaluable. If you can find a satisfactory reason for an event, you can better deal with similar events in the future. However, if you are unable to find an answer to your question, continued searching may only bring you frustration and unhappiness.

Capturing causal thinking in language is straightforward. Recall from high school English that conjunctions are words that link words or phrases—words such as
or
,
and
,
but
. Some conjunctions are specifically designed to express causal thinking: words such as
because
,
hence
,
therefore
,
since
. Although not officially function words, there are also a large number of nouns and verbs that signal causation as well, such as
cause
,
effect
,
reason
,
rationale
,
impel
,
control
. The more people naturally use these words in writing and speaking, the more they search for and think about causes.

DYNAMIC VERSUS CATEGORICAL THINKING

In chapter 2, people were asked to describe a picture of two people. Two of the descriptions were:

PERSON 1: In the aforementioned picture an elderly woman is about to speak to a middle aged woman who looks condescending and calculating.

PERSON 2: I see an old woman looking back on her years remembering how it was to be beautiful and young.

Whereas the first person, a male, describes the women in fairly direct and concrete terms, the second person, a female, paints a more dynamic picture that begins to construct a story. The more categorical-thinking male sees the world in terms of objects, events, and particular people. Categorical thinking demands the use of specific or concrete nouns. And with specific nouns comes the need for articles. The first person used three articles:
the
aforementioned picture,
an
elderly woman, and
a
middle-aged woman. The second person used only one—
an
old woman.

You can see the differences in categorical and dynamic thinking in everyday life as well. John McCain and Barack Obama, as they were running for president in the fall of 2008, revealed themselves to be strikingly different in their thinking styles. Through his debates, interviews, and even speeches, McCain used articles at very high rates. Obama, on the other hand, used articles at rates lower than McCain and, indeed, any other serious candidates in the presidential race. In mid-October, the two men settled into their final debate with each other. Both were asked to explain why America’s educational system was the most expensive in the world but was not viewed as very strong among the industrialized nations.

MCCAIN: Well, it’s
civil rights issue of
twenty-first century. There’s no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after
long and difficult and terrible struggle. But what is
advantage in
low-income area of sending
child to
failed school and that being your only choice? So choice and competition amongst schools is one of
key elements that’s already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places.