The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Twitter Language Use Reflects Psychological Differences between Democrats and Republicans
Open accessAbstract
Previous research has shown that political leanings correlate with various psychological factors. While surveys and experiments provide a rich source of information for political psychology, data from social networks can offer more naturalistic and robust material for analysis. This research investigates psychological differences between individuals of different political orientations on a social networking platform, Twitter. Based on previous findings, we hypothesized that the language used by liberals emphasizes their perception of uniqueness, contains more swear words, more anxiety-related words and more feeling-related words than conservatives' language. Conversely, we predicted that the language of conservatives emphasizes group membership and contains more references to achievement and religion than liberals' language. We analysed Twitter timelines of 5,373 followers of three Twitter accounts of the American Democratic and 5,386 followers of three accounts of the Republican parties' Congressional Organizations. The results support most of the predictions and previous findings, confirming that Twitter behaviour offers valid insights to offline behaviour.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619
Introduction to information retrieval
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-2715 · Cited by 12,278
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835
The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010) · Journal of Language and Social Psychology · doi:10.1177/0261927x09351676 · Cited by 5,774
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 3×
“A meta-analysis of personality-related findings confirmed that conservatism was negatively correlated with openness to experience and risk tolerance, and positively with the need for structure and order [7].”
BackgroundLiberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0015141 · Cited by 4,560
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
Political Polarization on Twitter
Conover, M., Ratkiewicz, J., Francisco, M., Goncalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.4589064 · Cited by 1,254
Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures
Golder, S. A., & Macy, M. W. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1202775 · Cited by 1,155
Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation
Furnham, A. (1986) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0 · Cited by 1,033
Cited by
Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology
Jost, J. T. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12407 · Cited by 696
Quantifying Search Bias: Investigating Sources of Bias for Political Searches in Social Media
Kulshrestha, J., Eslami, M., Messias, J., Zafar, M. B., Ghosh, S., Gummadi, K. P., & Karahalios, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998321 · Cited by 148
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128
Morality classification in natural language text
Pavan, M. C., dos Santos, V. G., Lan, A. G. J., Martins, J. T., dos Santos, W. R., Deutsch, C., da Costa, P. B., Hsieh, F. C., & Paraboni, I. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing · doi:10.1109/taffc.2020.3034050 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Sylwester, K., & Purver, M.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2015-09-16
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e0137422
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1458448385
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 56.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Twitter Language Use Reflects Psychological Differences between Democrats and Republicans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0137422
- The paper
- Sylwester, K., & Purver, M. (2015). Twitter Language Use Reflects Psychological Differences between Democrats and Republicans. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137422
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
