The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 45 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers
Open accessAbstract
Previous studies have found systematic associations between personality and individual differences in word use. Such studies have typically focused on broad associations between major personality domains and aggregate word categories, potentially masking more specific associations. Here I report the results of a large-scale analysis of personality and word use in a large sample of blogs (N=694). The size of the dataset enabled pervasive correlations with personality to be identified for a broad range of lexical variables, including both aggregate word categories and individual English words. The results replicated category-level findings from previous offline studies, identified numerous novel associations at both a categorical and single-word level, and underscored the value of complementary approaches to the study of personality and word use.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study analyzed personality and word use in 694 blogs, finding pervasive associations between Big Five traits/facets and both LIWC categories and individual words. It replicated prior offline findings while showing that broad category-level analyses can mask or contradict narrower facet- and word-level associations.
Key findings
- Of 330 Big Five–LIWC category correlations, 145 (43.9%) were significant at p < .05 and 49 (14.8%) at p < .001; the study replicated 15 of 30 correlations from Pennebaker and King (1999) and 15 of 24 from Hirsh and Peterson (2009).
- Facet-level analyses found 28.8% of 1,980 facet–LIWC correlations significant at p < .05 and 152 (7.7%) at p < .001, with substantial heterogeneity: Extraversion and Openness showed 42 and 56 heterogeneous categories, respectively.
- Openness had far more word-level correlates than other traits: it correlated significantly (p < .001) with 393 words, whereas Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness each correlated with fewer than 30 words.
- Word-level analyses revealed opposite-direction associations within categories, e.g., Agreeableness correlated positively with affection words like “loves,” “love,” and “hug” (all ρ ≥ .2, p < .001) but negatively with “porn,” “gay,” and “fuck” (all ρ < −.21, p < .001).
Methods
- Naturalistic sample of 694 blogs (524 female; mean age = 36.2 years, range 18–78, SD = 11.7), recruited via Google Blog Search and email; blogs averaged 115,423 words and spanned a mean of 23.9 months.
- Personality was measured with the 50-item IPIP NEO-FFI for Big Five traits (N = 576) and the 300-item IPIP NEO-PI-R for 30 facets (N = 431); language was analyzed with LIWC 2001 across 66 categories and with normalized counts of the 5,608 most frequent words.
- Analyses used Spearman rank correlations; word-level analyses included only blogs with ≥50,000 words (N = 406), used p < .001 thresholding, and applied split-half reliability and False Discovery Rate checks.
Limitations
- The paper states likely selection bias: only a small proportion of bloggers publicly display email addresses and only a fraction agreed to participate, potentially restricting personality variance and ruling out direct comparison with the general population.
- The paper states that many correlations were modest (largest LIWC–Big Five correlation = .23; mean absolute significant correlation = .14) and that all language variables were simple word counts, ignoring context, irony, images, and higher-order semantics.
- Evident from the text: the sample was three-quarters female, included only Google Blogger blogs, relied on self-report personality, and was correlational, so causal and generalizability claims are constrained.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
48 Own result · 22 Not checked yet · 20 Own interpretation · 11 Own method · 4 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, Artistic Interests and Emotionality failed to show the robust positive associations with Articles and Prepositions demonstrated by the other facets and total Openness scores.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unanticipated associations included correlations between Self-Consciousness and ‘sizes’ (ρ = .27), Intellect and ‘against’ (ρ = .37), Trust and ‘summer’ (ρ = .31), and Cooperation and ‘unusual’ (ρ = .3), to name a few (all of these examples survived even an extremely conservative Bonferroni correction for 5,000 comparison—i.e., p < .00001).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity for a large proportion of trait/category combinations (44%)5.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, Agreeableness showed a small but statistically significant positive correlation with use of Sexual words (ρ = .08, p < .05), and Extraversion, a trait often associated with increased incentive facilitation and agentic behavior (Depue & Collins, 1999), correlated negatively with several categories reflecting goal orientation and work-related achievement (Occupation, Job/work, and”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unanticipated associations included correlations between Self-Consciousness and ‘sizes’ (ρ = .27), Intellect and ‘against’ (ρ = .37), Trust and ‘summer’ (ρ = .31), and Cooperation and ‘unusual’ (ρ = .3), to name a few (all of these examples survived even an extremely conservative Bonferroni correction for 5,000 comparison—i.e., p < .00001).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous studies of personality and affective reactivity (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991), Neuroticism correlated positively with usage of several different negative emotion word categories, including Anxiety/Fear, Sadness, Anger, and total Negative Emotions (Table 1; Figure S1).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“inspection of the local context of “sizes” revealed that the word was most commonly used in the context of clothing sizes (e.g., “a few sizes too big”, “bras of all sizes”, “dropping dress sizes”, etc.)”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Agreeableness showed a small but statistically significant positive correlation with use of Sexual words (ρ = .08, p < .05), and Extraversion, a trait often associated with increased incentive facilitation and agentic behavior (Depue & Collins, 1999), correlated negatively with several categories reflecting goal orientation and work-related achievement (Occupation, Job/work, and”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Depue & Collins, 1999 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not surprisingly, many of the facet-level results reaffirmed the domain-level results; for example, most Neuroticism facets correlated positively with negative emotion word use (Table 3, Figure S1); most Extraversion facets correlated positively with use of categories related to positive emotions and social processes (Table 3, Figure S2); and nearly all Agreeableness facets correlated negatively”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unanticipated associations included correlations between Self-Consciousness and ‘sizes’ (ρ = .27), Intellect and ‘against’ (ρ = .37), Trust and ‘summer’ (ρ = .31), and Cooperation and ‘unusual’ (ρ = .3), to name a few (all of these examples survived even an extremely conservative Bonferroni correction for 5,000 comparison—i.e., p < .00001).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- It may state two separate claims as one. 35
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, the full sample contained 694 blogs (524 female; mean age = 36.2 years, range = 18 -78, sd = 11.7), though the actual sample size was smaller for some analyses because not all participants provided personality data (see below).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Participants and Procedure
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 330 different correlation coefficients between the Big Five traits and the 66 LIWC categories, 145 (43.9%) were statistically significant at p < .05, and 49 (14.8%) were statistically significant at p < .001.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, the results directly replicated previous findings at a rate substantially greater than chance; specifically, the present study successfully replicated 15 of 30 correlations between Big Five dimensions and LIWC categories reported by Pennebaker & King (1999), and 15 of 24 Big Five correlations reported by Hirsh & Peterson (2009).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pennebaker & King (1999)
- Not checked yetcites Hirsh & Peterson (2009)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, Openness correlated significantly (p < .001) with 393 words, whereas Neuroticism, Extraversion and Conscientiousness all correlated with fewer than 30 words.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 1980 different correlation coefficients between the 30 facets and the 66 LIWC categories, (28.8%) were statistically significant at p < .05, and 152 (7.7%) were statistically significant at p < .0014.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most notably, Openness to Experience, which one might have expected to correlate positively with categories associated with emotional, intellectual, or sensory experience, was negatively correlated with 37 of the 66 LIWC categories, and positively correlated with only 4 categories.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, these dissociations could not be explained by heterogeneity in the Openness facets themselves. Intercorrelations between the six facets were all directionally positive, and were moderate or strong in most cases.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, the Assertiveness and Activity Level facets showed generally weaker relations with the LIWC categories than the other facets, with the notable exception that Activity Level was the only Extraversion facet to correlate positively with categories related to goal-directed and achievement-seeking behavior (School, Job/work, and Achievement).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
In the paper
“This pattern appeared to reflect a fundamental difference in language style rather than content (Chung & Pennebaker 2007); people high on Openness tended to use more Articles (ρ = .2, p < .001) and Prepositions (ρ = .17, p < .001) than people low on Openness, suggesting a potential tendency to favor high-frequency function words at the expense of the lower frequency content words that made up most”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chung & Pennebaker 2007
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, Excitement-Seeking was the only Extraversion facet to correlate positively with the Negative Emotions, Anger, and Swearing categories or negatively with the Inclusive, Home, and Grooming categories.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Neuroticism, most of the heterogeneity appeared to stem primarily from a single facet: Self-Consciousness differed from the other facets in that it showed no positive correlation with negative affect categories, and conversely, was the only Neuroticism facet to correlate negatively with categories related to interpersonal interaction (Table 3, Figure S1).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of heterogeneous categories was relatively low for Conscientiousness (6 categories), Neuroticism (16), and Agreeableness (15).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the facets of Friendliness, Gregariousness, and Cheerfulness all showed consistent positive correlations with most categories related to positive affect, communality, and interpersonal interaction (e.g., Positive Emotions, Social Processes, 1st Person Plural references, Friends, Family, and Sexual words), whereas the other facets did not.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, Agreeableness correlated positively with some words in the Sexual words category (e.g., ‘loves’, ‘love’, and ‘hug’; all ρ's >= .2, p's < .001) but negatively with others (e.g., ‘porn’, ‘gay’, and ‘fuck’; all ρ's < -.21, p < .001).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Artistic Interests and Emotionality correlated positively with use of the Position Emotion, Inclusive, and Physical States categories, whereas the other four facets generally showed negative correlations.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, Artistic Interests correlated .33 with Intellect, despite the fact that the two facets showed robust correlations in opposite directions with Positive Emotion word use (ρ's = .18 and -.24, respectively; p's < .0001).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present study, 44% of all correlations between the Big Five traits and LIWC categories were statistically significant, yet the mean absolute correlation was only .14.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A post-hoc analysis supported this supposition, as Agreeableness correlated strongly in opposite directions with two four-word categories related to love and affection (‘love’, ‘loves’, ‘loved’, and ‘loving’; ρ = .33) versus sexual behavior (‘fuck’, ‘porn’, ‘gay’, and ‘rape’; ρ = -.4), and the two 4-word categories were themselves negatively correlated (ρ= -.15, p < .01).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, 83% of participants (N = 576) had scores for the Big Five factors of personality (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness), and 62% (N = 431) had additional facet-level scores2.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Personality measures
plainn = 576- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As discussed below, such writing samples limit the types of analyses researchers can conduct, as it is generally not possible to reliably estimate usage rates for individual words, but only for aggregate categories.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that because most participants were recruited via email, the resulting sample was not truly random: bias could arise either because some people were more likely to publish their email address on their blog (a requisite for being contacted), or because some people were more likely to respond to the invitation than others.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Participants and Procedure
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, data are typically gathered from participants on a small number of occasions (often just one) spanning several hours or days; such datasets cannot be used to establish whether any identified associations between personality and language remain stable over much longer periods of time (i.e., months or years), or reflect transient influences (e.g., mood).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that females comprised three-quarters of the sample raised the possibility that results might be disproportionately driven by one gender; however, partial correlation analysis demonstrated that controlling for gender and age had negligible effects on the results. For virtually all analyses, > 90% of statistically significant correlations continued to show a significant correlation in the”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Participants and Procedure
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It remains unclear to what extent the results of such studies generalize to less constrained real-world situations where people's personalities can influence not only how they write or talk about specific topics, but also what topics they choose to write or talk about (cf. Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“studies have consistently identified theoretically predicted correlations between the dimensions of Extraversion and Neuroticism and usage of words related to a variety of positive and negative emotion categories (Hirsh & Peterson, 2009; Lee, Kim, Seo, & Chung, 2007; Pennebaker & King 1999).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hirsh & Peterson, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Lee, Kim, Seo, & Chung, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Pennebaker & King 1999
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A split-half reliability analysis (i.e., randomly dividing each participants posts into two halves, and then correlating each category's frequency across halves for all participants) confirmed this supposition: the mean split-half correlation for the 66 categories was .81 (range = .43 - .94), and only 2 categories (Anxiety and Inhibition) had correlations lower than .6.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Category-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To minimize this risk, interpretation of statistically significant findings was based primarily on the aggregate pattern of results with multiple categories or traits rather than on individual correlation coefficients. Additionally, the presence or absence of statistical significance is reported in key tables using a complementary False Discovery Rate criterion (FDR), which adaptively controls the”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Category-based analyses
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, only the 5,608 words that occurred most frequently across all blogs were analyzed3; second, only blogs containing 50,000 or more words were included in the word-level analyses (N = 406).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Word-based analyses
plainn = 406- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Word-level results were thresholded at p < .001 in order to minimize the incidence of false positives.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Word-based analyses
plainn = 406- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that highly self-conscious people may be more attuned and concerned with their physical appearance”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This pattern appeared to reflect a fundamental difference in language style rather than content (Chung & Pennebaker 2007); people high on Openness tended to use more Articles (ρ = .2, p < .001) and Prepositions (ρ = .17, p < .001) than people low on Openness, suggesting a potential tendency to favor high-frequency function words at the expense of the lower frequency content words that made up most”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Big Five traits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chung & Pennebaker 2007
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Collectively, these findings are consistent with the notion that the affiliative and agentic aspects of Extraversion are relatively distinct and have only partially overlapping correlates (Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005; Watson & Clark, 1997).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Category-based analyses: Lower-order facets
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, 2005 source
- Not checked yetcites Watson & Clark, 1997
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analysis suggested that reliability was high to moderate (> .6) for the first 2,000 – 3,000 or so words, and somewhat lower thereafter. However, even for low-ranked words, split-half correlations generally remained above .4, a level considered acceptable for present purposes given that word-level analyses focused primarily on the aggregate pattern of associations with personality rather than”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Word-based analyses
hedgedcorrelationaln = 406- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The explanation for this seemingly paradoxical finding was that the positively correlated words occurred relatively infrequently and predominantly expressed relational spatial concepts (e.g., ‘among’, ‘between’, ‘further’, and ‘under’).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Individual differences in personality have previously been linked to differences in linguistic style in laboratory and experience-sampling settings (Fast & Funder, 2008; Hirsh & Peterson, 2009; Mehl et al., 2006; Pennebaker & King 1999).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fast & Funder, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Hirsh & Peterson, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Mehl et al., 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results demonstrate that high-level associations between broad traits and aggregate word categories can mask, and in some cases even contradict, robust but relatively narrow associations.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, Hirsh and Peterson (2009) found fewer than 15% of tested effects to be statistically significant, yet obtained a much larger mean statistically significant r of .23.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hirsh and Peterson (2009)
plainn = 94- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is reasonable to suppose that highly Open individuals use “big words” more often, effectively resulting in strong positive correlations for many individual words (but conversely, producing negative correlations for LIWC categories that tend to be made up of a relatively small number of high-frequency words).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, it is important to note that the primary consequence of selection bias would be a restricted distribution of personality scores among self-selected participants, which would generally tend to deflate effect sizes and statistical power, leading to results that actually underestimate the magnitude of true population effects.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Bloggers who participated had systematically different personalities from those who did not.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results converge with other recent findings suggesting that, contrary to popular wisdom, people do not present themselves in an idealized and overly positive way online (Turkle, 1997), and maintain online identities that reflect the way they genuinely see themselves and are seen by others (Back et al., 2010; Vazire & Gosling, 2004).”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Turkle, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Back et al., 2010 source
- Not checked yetcites Vazire & Gosling, 2004
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, although the present study explored language use at the level of both aggregate categories and individual words, all language variables were ultimately derived from simple counts of word use, and no contextual factors or higher-order semantic variables were taken into consideration.”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Bloggers were unaware that their writing would be analyzed in relation to personality at the time of writing.
“Because bloggers were free to write about any topic of their choosing and were (at the time of writing) unaware that their writing would be analyzed in relation to personality, the data provided an naturalistic window into the influence of personality on language use that could not be influenced by demand characteristics.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The blog content analyzed was authored by the participant blogger themselves.
“The contents of participants' blogs were subsequently downloaded and parsed using a set of custom scripts written in the Ruby programming language.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Bloggers who participated had systematically different personalities from those who did not.
“It is reasonable to suppose that bloggers who participated had systematically different personalities from those who did not (e.g., they might be more Agreeable or Open).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“He identified single word results which would not have been caught with LIWC, such as ‘hug’ correlating positively with agreeableness (there is no physical affection category inLIWC), but, considering the sparse nature of words, 406 blogs does not result in comprehensive view.”
From Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach (2013) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“To date, this represents the largest study, by an order of magnitude, of language and personality.”
From Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach (2013) · cites this paper as [27]
In the citing paper
“openness exhibits the most variation across conditions of other studies (for examples, see [25], [27], [65]), and its component traits are most loosely related [85].”
From Personality, Gender, and Age in the Language of Social Media: The Open-Vocabulary Approach (2013) · cites this paper as [27]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Method > Word-based analyses
“First, only the 5,608 words that occurred most frequently across all blogs were analyzed3”
§ Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers > Results > Word-based analyses
“I correlated bloggers' personality scores with a set of 5,068 individual words.”
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
Foundations of statistical natural language processing
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999) · Cited by 9,816
Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet
Turkle, S. (1997) · Cited by 6,340
The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 · Cited by 3,185
Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.668 · Cited by 2,652 · cited 1×
“Consistent with previous studies of personality and affective reactivity (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991), Neuroticism correlated positively with usage of several different negative emotion word categories, including Anxiety/Fear, Sadness, Anger, and total Negative Emotions (Table 1;…”
ResultInfluence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.38.4.668 · Cited by 2,648
Psychological Aspects of Natural Language Use: Our Words, Our Selves
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041 · Cited by 2,624
Comparing correlated correlation coefficients
Meng, X.-L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172 · Cited by 2,472
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)
Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012 · Cited by 2,215
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 648
Does the CMO’s personality matter for web traffic? Evidence from technology-based new ventures
Winkler, H.-J., Rieger, V., & Engélen, A. (2019) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-019-00671-9 · Cited by 53
Learning from Multiple Social Networks
Nie, L., Song, X., & Chua, T. (2016) · Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services · doi:10.2200/s00714ed1v01y201603icr048 · Cited by 50
Quantitative Sentiment Analysis of Lyrics in Popular Music
Napier, K., & Shamir, L. (2018) · Journal of Popular Music Studies · doi:10.1525/jpms.2018.300411 · Cited by 50
Can an Algorithm Know the "Real You"?
Warshaw, J., Matthews, T. L., Whittaker, S., Kau, C., Bengualid, M., & Smith, B. A. (2015) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702274 · Cited by 51
Psychosocial Modeling of Insider Threat Risk Based on Behavioral and Word Use Analysis
Greitzer, Kangas, Noonan, Brown, & Ferryman (2013) · e-Service Journal · doi:10.2979/eservicej.9.1.106 · Cited by 47
Pitt, C. S., Bal, A. S., & Plangger, K. (2020) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-01-2019-0083 · Cited by 47
Volunteerism Tendency Prediction via Harvesting Multiple Social Networks
Song, X., Ming, Z., Nie, L., Zhao, Y., & Chua, T. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/2832907 · Cited by 48
Am I who I say I am? Unobtrusive self-representation and personality recognition on Facebook
Hall, M., & Caton, S. J. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0184417 · Cited by 51
Han, M. (2020) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2020.106567 · Cited by 47
Affect and Social Processes in Online Communication--Experiments with an Affective Dialog System
Skowron, M., Theunis, M., Rank, S., & Kappas, A. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/t-affc.2013.16 · Cited by 47
Facebook versus Twitter: Differences in Self-Disclosure and Trait Prediction
Jaidka, K., Guntuku, S. C., & Ungar, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.15026 · Cited by 46
Digital Footprints of Sensation Seeking
Schoedel, R., Au, Q., Völkel, S. T., Lehmann, F., Becker, D., Bühner, M., Bischl, B., Hußmann, H., & Stachl, C. (2018) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000342 · Cited by 46
Moreno, J. D., Martínez‐Huertas, J. Á., Olmos, R., Jorge‐Botana, G., & Botella, J. (2021) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2021.110818 · Cited by 47
Influences of parent and child negative emotionality on young children's everyday behaviors.
Slatcher, R. B., & Trentacosta, C. J. (2012) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0027148 · Cited by 49
"It's like living with a friendly stranger": perceptions of personality traits in a smart home
Mennicken, S., Zihler, O., Juldaschewa, F., Molnar, V., Aggeler, D., & Huang, E. M. (2016) · Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1145/2971648.2971757 · Cited by 47
Personality expression in Chinese language use
Qiu, L., Lu, J., Ramsay, J. E., Yang, S., Qu, W., & Zhu, T. (2016) · International Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1002/ijop.12259 · Cited by 44
Computational personality assessment
Stachl, C., Boyd, R. L., Horstmann, K. T., Khambatta, P., Matz, S., & Harari, G. M. (2021) · Personality Science · doi:10.5964/ps.6115 · Cited by 48
How the online social networks are used: dialogues-based structure of MySpace
Šuvakov, M., Dankulov, M. M., Gligorijević, V., & Tadić, B. (2012) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2012.0819 · Cited by 43
Communicating with Machines: Conversational Agents with Personality and the Role of Extraversion
Ahmad, R., Siemon, D., & Robra-Bissantz, S. (2021) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.492 · Cited by 41
Rich contexts do not always enrich the accuracy of personality judgments
Wall, H. J., Taylor, P. J., Dixon, J. A., Conchie, S. M., & Ellis, D. A. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.010 · Cited by 41
Lifestyles in Amazon: Evidence from online reviews enhanced recommender system
Huang, Y., Liu, H., Li, W., Wang, Z., Hu, X., & Wang, W. (2019) · International Journal of Market Research · doi:10.1177/1470785319844146 · Cited by 45
Inferring Employee Engagement from Social Media
Shami, N. S., Muller, M. J., Pal, A., Masli, M., & Geyer, W. (2015) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702445 · Cited by 41
Manifestations of Individual Differences in Physical and Virtual Environments
Graham, L. T., Sandy, C. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781444343120.ch30 · Cited by 41
Are we who we follow? Computationally analyzing human personality and brand following on Twitter
Yun, J. T., Pamuksuz, U., & Duff, B. R. L. (2019) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2019.1575106 · Cited by 43
Predicting Insider Threat Risks through Linguistic Analysis of Electronic Communication
Brown, C. R., Watkins, A., & Greitzer, F. L. (2013) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.453 · Cited by 40
Allen, S. F., Wetherell, M. A., & Smith, M. A. (2020) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112697 · Cited by 39
Language use in the adult attachment interview: evidence for attachment-specific emotion regulation
BORELLI, J. L., DAVID, D. H., RIFKIN‐GRABOI, A., SBARRA, D. A., MEHL, M. R., & MAYES, L. C. (2013) · Personal Relationships · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2012.01394.x · Cited by 39
Data Is What Data Does: Regulating Based on Harm and Risk Instead of Sensitive Data
Solove, D. J. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4322198 · Cited by 39
A Big Data Platform for Real Time Analysis of Signs of Depression in Social Media
Martínez-Castaño, R., Pichel, J. C., & Losada, D. E. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17134752 · Cited by 42
A meta-analysis of linguistic markers of extraversion: Positive emotion and social process words
Chen, J., Qiu, L., & Ho, M. R. (2020) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2020.104035 · Cited by 45
Predicting Users’ Movie Preference and Rating Behavior from Personality and Values
Khan, E. M., Mukta, M. S. H., Ali, M. E., & Mahmud, J. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3338244 · Cited by 40
Consumer preference for formal address and informal address from warm brands and competent brands
Leung, E., Lenoir, A.-S., Puntoni, S., & van Osselaer, S. M. J. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1322 · Cited by 39
Personality traits, basic individual values and GMO risk perception of twitter users
Whittingham, N., Boecker, A., & Grygorczyk, A. (2019) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2019.1591491 · Cited by 38
Cohen, S. J. (2011) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-011-9196-9 · Cited by 41
PT-LDA: A latent variable model to predict personality traits of social network users
Liu, Y., Wang, J., & Jiang, Y. (2016) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2015.10.144 · Cited by 42
Automatic personality prediction: an enhanced method using ensemble modeling
Ramezani, M., Feizi‐Derakhshi, M., Balafar, M. A., Asgari-Chenaghlu, M., Feizi-Derakhshi, A.-R., Nikzad-Khasmakhi, N., Ranjbar-Khadivi, M., Jahanbakhsh-Nagadeh, Z., Zafarani-Moattar, E., & Akan, T. (2022) · Neural Computing and Applications · doi:10.1007/s00521-022-07444-6 · Cited by 38
Karanatsiou, D., Sermpezis, P., Gruda, D., Kafetsios, K. G., Dimitriadis, I., & Vakali, A. I. (2022) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3523749 · Cited by 43
Personality development through natural language
Lanning, K., Pauletti, R. E., King, L. A., & McAdams, D. P. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0329-0 · Cited by 37
A large-scale, in-depth analysis of developers’ personalities in the Apache ecosystem
Calefato, F., Lanubile, F., & Vasilescu, B. (2019) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2019.05.012 · Cited by 39
Semantic-enhanced sequential modeling for personality trait recognition from texts
Xue, X., Feng, J. H., & Sun, X. (2021) · Applied Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s10489-021-02277-7 · Cited by 37
CEO personality and language use in CSR reporting
Mahmoudian, F., Nazari, J. A., Gordon, I. M., & Hrazdil, K. (2021) · Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility · doi:10.1111/beer.12347 · Cited by 38
User Perceptions of Extraversion in Chatbots after Repeated Use
Völkel, S. T., Schoedel, R., Kaya, L., & Mayer, S. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502058 · Cited by 41
Wu, R., Zhao, X., Li, Z. G., & Xie, Y. (2024) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-04-2023-0309 · Cited by 36
Holtzman, N. S., Augustine, A. A., & Senne, A. L. (2011) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.08.003 · Cited by 36
Optimization for Automatic Personality Recognition on Twitter in Bahasa Indonesia
Adi, G. Y. N. N., Tandio, M. H., Ong, V., & Suhartono, D. (2018) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.199 · Cited by 37
Orders Are Unwanted: Dynamic Deep Graph Convolutional Network for Personality Detection
Yang, T., Deng, J., Quan, X., & Wang, Q. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i11.26627 · Cited by 39
Schoch-Ruppen, J., Ehlert, U., Uggowitzer, F., Weymerskirch, N., & Ghaemmaghami, P. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01234 · Cited by 35
Παπουτσόγλου, Μ., Kapitsaki, G. M., & Angelis, L. (2020) · Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory · doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2020.102157 · Cited by 35
How developments in natural language processing help us in understanding human behaviour
Mihalcea, R. F., Biester, L., Boyd, R. L., Jin, Z., Pérez‐Rosas, V., Wilson, S. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01938-0 · Cited by 37
Hu, L., He, H., Wang, D., Zhao, Z., Shao, Y., & Nie, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29782 · Cited by 40
Emotional reactions to robot colleagues in a role-playing experiment
Savela, N., Oksanen, A., Pellert, M., & García, D. (2021) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102361 · Cited by 37
Weston, S. J., Cox, K. S., Condon, D. M., & Jackson, J. J. (2015) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12183 · Cited by 33
Dynamics of bloggers’ communities: Bipartite networks from empirical data and agent-based modeling
Dankulov, M. M., & Tadić, B. (2012) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2012.06.004 · Cited by 33
From Likert scales to images: Validating a novel creativity measure with image based response scales
Leutner, F., Yearsley, A., Codreanu, S., Borenstein, Y., & Ahmetoglu, G. (2016) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.007 · Cited by 39
Using Personal Traits For Brand Preference Prediction
Yang, C., Pan, S., Mahmud, J., Yang, H., & Srinivasan, P. (2015) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1009 · Cited by 32
Roulin, N., & Stronach, R. (2022) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12396 · Cited by 35
Estimating affective word covariates using word association data
Rensbergen, B. V., Deyne, S. D., & Storms, G. (2015) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0680-2 · Cited by 35
Murthy, D., Bowman, S. A., Gross, A., & Mcgarry, M. (2015) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12176 · Cited by 32
The Language of Religious Affiliation
Yaden, D. B., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Smith, L. K., Buffone, A. E. K., Stillwell, D. J., Kosiński, M., Ungar, L., Seligman, M. E. P., & Schwartz, H. A. (2017) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550617711228 · Cited by 33
Examining User Preference for Agreeableness in Chatbots
Völkel, S. T., & Kaya, L. (2021) · CUI 2021 - 3rd Conference on Conversational User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3469595.3469633 · Cited by 31
Badenes, H., Bengualid, M., Chen, J., Gou, L., Haber, E. M., Mahmud, J., Nichols, J. W., Pal, A., Schoudt, J., Smith, B. A., et al. (2014) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/2645710.2645719 · Cited by 30
Such stuff as dreams are made on: Dream language, LIWC norms, and personality correlates.
Hawkins, R. C., & Boyd, R. L. (2017) · Dreaming · doi:10.1037/drm0000049 · Cited by 31
Regional personality assessment through social media language
Giorgi, S., Nguyen, K. D. L., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Yaden, D. B., Kosiński, M., Seligman, M. E. P., Ungar, L., Schwartz, H. A., & Park, G. (2021) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12674 · Cited by 35
Han, M. (2021) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2021.113682 · Cited by 30
The story of “I” tracking: Psychological implications of self‐referential language use
Berry‐Blunt, A. K., Holtzman, N. S., Donnellan, M. B., & Mehl, M. R. (2021) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12647 · Cited by 35
All the Dark Triad and some of the Big Five traits are visible in the face
Alper, S., Bayrak, F., & Yılmaz, O. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110350 · Cited by 30
Broome, L. J., Izura, C., & Davies, J. (2020) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104647 · Cited by 35
Retweet Prediction based on Topic, Emotion and Personality
Firdaus, S. N., Ding, C., & Sadeghian, A. (2021) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100165 · Cited by 29
The Effects of Partner Extraversion and Agreeableness on Trust
Stavrova, O., Evans, A. M., & van Beest, I. (2022) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672221086768 · Cited by 35
Wang, Y., Gou, L., Xu, A., Zhou, M. X., Yang, H., & Badenes, H. (2015) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702293 · Cited by 29
Modeling Ideology and Predicting Policy Change with Social Media
Zhang, A. X., & Counts, S. (2015) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702193 · Cited by 29
Personality Recognition in Conversations using Capsule Neural Networks
Ríssola, E. A., Bahrainian, S. A., & Crestani, F. (2019) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence · doi:10.1145/3350546.3352516 · Cited by 29
MacKrill, K., Silvester, C., Pennebaker, J. W., & Petrie, K. J. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24471 · Cited by 33
A bibliometric analysis of virtual influencers in the Web of Science
López, N. V., Boluda, I. K., Mora, E., & Riquelme, I. P. (2023) · Journal of Marketing Analytics · doi:10.1057/s41270-023-00262-2 · Cited by 28
The construction of emotional meaning in language
Hoemann, K., Lee, Y., Dussault, È., Devylder, S., Ungar, L., Geeraerts, D., & Mesquita, B. (2025) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-025-00255-0 · Cited by 38
Predicting Perceived Brand Personality with Social Media
Xu, A., Liu, H., Gou, L., Akkiraju, R., Mahmud, J., Sinha, V. S., Hu, Y., & Qiao, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v10i1.14733 · Cited by 28
Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., & Handy, A. B. (2019) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0 · Cited by 27
The Power of Identity Cues in Text-Based Customer Service: Evidence from Twitter
Gao, Y. A., Rui, H., & Sun, S. (2023) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2022/17366 · Cited by 27
Psychometric evaluation of the Serbian dictionary for automatic text analysis - LIWCser
Bjekić, J., Lazarević, L. B., Živanović, M., & Knežević, G. (2014) · Psihologija · doi:10.2298/psi1401005b · Cited by 28
Shen, Z., Elibol, A., & Chong, N. Y. (2021) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2021.103874 · Cited by 27
Haro, J., Hinojosa, J. A., & Ferré, P. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02488-z · Cited by 26
Using Nuances of Emotion to Identify Personality
Mohammad, S. M., & Kiritchenko, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v7i2.14468 · Cited by 26
Exploiting Turn-Taking Temporal Evolution for Personality Trait Perception in Dyadic Conversations
Su, M.-H., Wu, C., & Zheng, Y.-T. (2016) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.1109/taslp.2016.2531286 · Cited by 26
Personality predicts words in favorite songs
Qiu, L., Chen, J., Ramsay, J. E., & Lu, J. (2018) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2018.11.004 · Cited by 30
Speech-based personality prediction using deep learning with acoustic and linguistic embeddings
Lukáč, M. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-81047-0 · Cited by 25
Individual Differences in Accurately Judging Personality From Text
Hall, J. A., Goh, J. X., Mast, M. S., & Hagedorn, C. (2015) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12170 · Cited by 29
Using Internet Activity Profiling for Insider-threat Detection
Alahmadi, B., Legg, P., & Nurse, J. R. C. (2015) · International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems · doi:10.5220/0005480407090720 · Cited by 25
Surrogates and Artificial Intelligence: Why AI Trumps Family
Hubbard, R. K., & Greenblum, J. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00266-6 · Cited by 24
Evaluating voice samples as a potential source of information about personality
Marrero, Z., Gosling, S. D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Harari, G. M. (2022) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103740 · Cited by 25
On the Personality Traits of GitHub Contributors
Rastogi, A., & Nagappan, N. (2016) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering · doi:10.1109/issre.2016.43 · Cited by 24
Predicting Personality Using Facebook Status Based on Semi-supervised Learning
Zheng, H., & Wu, C. (2019) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Computing (ICMLC) · doi:10.1145/3318299.3318363 · Cited by 24
Foster, M. D., Hennessey, E., Blankenship, B. T., & Stewart, A. J. (2019) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2019-4-6 · Cited by 30
Allison, T. H., Anglin, A. H., Davis, B. C., Oo, P. P., Seyb, S., Short, J. C., & Wolfe, M. T. (2022) · Journal of Small Business Management · doi:10.1080/00472778.2022.2056606 · Cited by 24
Zhu, Y., Hu, L., Ning, N., Zhang, W., & Wu, B. (2022) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108952 · Cited by 23
To Buy or Not to Buy? Understanding the Role of Personality Traits in Predicting Consumer Behaviors
Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Mahmud, J., Akkiraju, R., Schoudt, J., Xu, A., & Donovan, B. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47874-6_24 · Cited by 23
Personalized Emphasis Framing for Persuasive Message Generation
Ding, T., & Pan, S. (2016) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1150 · Cited by 23
Forbidden knowledge in machine learning reflections on the limits of research and publication
Hagendorff, T. (2020) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01045-4 · Cited by 25
Exploring the relationship between personality structure and smartphone usage
Burtăverde, V., Sebastian, V., & Avram, E. (2019) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-019-00521-5 · Cited by 22
Mukta, M. S. H., Islam, S., Shatabda, S., Ali, M. E., & Zaman, A. (2022) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs12040087 · Cited by 22
Your Data, Your Vis: Personalizing Personal Data Visualizations
Schneider, H., Schauer, K., Stachl, C., & Butz, A. M. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-67687-6_25 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Yarkoni, T.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Boulder (US)
- Corresponding author
- Yarkoni, Tal
- ORCID
- Yarkoni, Tal
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Personality
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 363-373
- ISSN
- 0092-6566 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2885844
- OpenAlex
- W1973871257
- Cited by
- 637
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 57 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 16.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Research in Personality (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Nursing Research (F32NR012081)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Keywords
- personality, word usage, bloggers, English vocabulary, language and personality, replication
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
