Cited by 37Social and Intergroup PsychologyMental Health via WritingComputational and Text Analysis Methods

Tracking group identity through natural language within groups

Open access
Ashokkumar, Ashwini, Pennebaker, James W·2022·PNAS Nexus

Abstract

To what degree can we determine people's connections with groups through the language they use? In recent years, large archives of behavioral data from social media communities have become available to social scientists, opening the possibility of tracking naturally occurring group identity processes. A feature of most digital groups is that they rely exclusively on the written word. Across 3 studies, we developed and validated a language-based metric of group identity strength and demonstrated its potential in tracking identity processes in online communities. In Studies 1a–1c, 873 people wrote about their connections to various groups (country, college, or religion). A total of 2 language markers of group identity strength were found: high affiliation (more words like we, togetherness) and low cognitive processing or questioning (fewer words like think, unsure). Using these markers, a language-based unquestioning affiliation index was developed and applied to in-class stream-of-consciousness essays of 2,161 college students (Study 2). Greater levels of unquestioning affiliation expressed in language predicted not only self-reported university identity but also students’ likelihood of remaining enrolled in college a year later. In Study 3, the index was applied to naturalistic Reddit conversations of 270,784 people in 2 online communities of supporters of the 2016 presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The index predicted how long people would remain in the group (3a) and revealed temporal shifts mirroring members’ joining and leaving of groups (3b). Together, the studies highlight the promise of a language-based approach for tracking and studying group identity processes in online groups.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac022

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashokkumar, A., & Pennebaker, J. W.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Ashokkumar, Ashwini
Venue
PNAS Nexus
Published
2022-05
Volume
1
Issue
2
Pages
pgac022-pgac022
ISSN
2752-6542 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283459516
Cited by
36
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PNAS Nexus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Templeton Foundation (62256)
  • National Science Foundation (SES1758835)
  • National Institutes of Health (1R01MH117172)
  • Department of Justice (15F06718R0006603, NIJ202160007)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
Keywords
group identity, online communities, social media, college retention, political supporters

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.

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