Cited by 317Mental Health via WritingComputational and Text Analysis MethodsAuthorship Attribution and Profiling

Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: the past, present, and future states of the field

Open access
Boyd, Ryan L., Schwartz, H. Andrew·2021·Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Abstract

Throughout history, scholars and laypeople alike have believed that our words contain subtle clues about what we are like as people, psychologically speaking. However, the ways in which language has been used to infer psychological processes has seen dramatic shifts over time and, with modern computational technologies and digital data sources, we are on the verge of a massive revolution in language analysis research. In this article, we discuss the past and current states of research at the intersection of language analysis and psychology, summarizing the central successes and shortcomings of psychological text analysis to date. We additionally outline and discuss a critical need for language analysis practitioners in the social sciences to expand their view of verbal behavior. Lastly, we discuss the trajectory of interdisciplinary research on language and the challenges of integrating analysis methods across paradigms, recommending promising future directions for the field along the way.

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 · 10.1177/0261927x20967028

Cites

83 of 83 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?

  • Dictionary-based text analysis of keywords in qualitative user commands recorded on SVA oversimplifies older people's interactions with SVA to a one-way initiative by the user and fails to capture the communicative nature of such interactions.

    “However, such a dictionary-based approach oversimplifies older people's interactions with SVA to a one-way initiative by the user and fails to capture the communicative nature of such interactions—the transmission and coordination of complex information with others (7).”

    From Understanding older people's voice interactions with smart voice assistants: a new modified rule-based natural language processing model with human input (2024) · cites this paper as [7]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Althoff T, Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil C, & Jurafsky D (2014). How to ask for a favor: A case study on the success of altruistic requests. In Adar E, Resnick P, Choudhury MD, Hogan B, & Oh AH(Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 12– 21). The AAAI Press.
  2. Freud S (1915). The unconscious. Penguin Classics.
  3. O’Connor B, Bamman D, & Smith NA (2011). Computational text analysis for social science: Model assumptions and complexity. In Mason W, Vaughan JW, & Wallach H(Eds.), Second Workshop on Computational Social Science and Wisdom of the Crowds (pp. 1– 7). Curran Associates.
  4. Prasad R, Dinesh N, Lee A, Miltsakaki E, Robaldo L, Joshi A, & Webber B (2008, 5). The Penn Discourse TreeBank 2.0. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’08). LREC 2008, Marrakech, Morocco. http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2008/pdf/754_paper.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boyd, R. L., & Schwartz, H. A.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
Corresponding author
Boyd, Ryan L.
Venue
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Published
2020-10-28
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
21-41
ISSN
  • 0261-927X (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6526
OpenAlex
W3094938719
Cited by
317
References
83
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 82 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 4
FWCI
37.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Language and Social Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (196255)
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA028032)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
Keywords
natural language analysis, verbal behavior, language and personality, computational text analysis, digital data sources, interdisciplinary research, methodological integration

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