Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,151

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC): Pronounced “Luke,” . . . and Other Useful Facts

Chung, Cindy K., Pennebaker, James W.·2012·Applied Natural Language Processing
DOI 10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) is a word counting software program that references a dictionary of grammatical, psychological, and content word categories. LIWC has been used to efficiently classify texts along psychological dimensions and to predict behavioral outcomes, making it a text analysis tool widely used in the social sciences. LIWC can be considered to be a tool for applied natural language processing since, beyond classification, the relative uses of various LIWC categories can reflect the underlying psychology of demographic characteristics, honesty, health, status, relationship quality, group dynamics, or social context. By using a comparison group or longitudinal information, or validation with other psychological measures, LIWC analyses can be informative of a variety of psychological states and behaviors. Combining LIWC categories using new algorithms or using the processor to assess new categories and languages further extend the potential applications of LIWC.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Argamon, S., Dawhle, S., Koppel, M., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2005). Lexical predictors of personality type. Proceedings of Classification Society of North America, St. Louis MI, June 2005.
  2. 10.1002/acp.1087 · DOI
  3. W.Bucci, 2005, Building a weighted dictionary for referential activity, Computing attitude and affect in text, 49
  4. 10.1177/000306510705500412 · DOI
  5. Chung, C. K. (2009). Predicting weight loss in blogs using computerized text analysis. Unpublished dissertation. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
  6. C. K.Chung, 2007, The psychological function of function words, Social communication: Frontiers of social psychology, 343
  7. 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006 · DOI · Paper page
  8. H. H.Clark, 1996, Using language, 10.1017/CBO9780511620539 · DOI · Paper page
  9. S.Duval, 1972, A theory of objective self-awareness
  10. 10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.334 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225 · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02024.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1177/0093650209351468 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00737.x · DOI · Paper page
  15. L. A.Gottschalk, 2000, The application of computerized content analysis of natural language in psychotherapy research now and in the future., American Journal of Psychotherapy, 54, 305, 10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2000.54.3.305 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/08870440290025786 · DOI
  17. J. T.Hancock, 2010, Social language processing: A framework for analyzing the communication of terrorists and authoritarian regimes. Behavioral Sciences in Terrorism and Political Aggression, Special Issue: Memory and Terrorism, 2, 108
  18. 10.1080/01638530701739181 · DOI · Paper page
  19. R. P.Hart, 2000, DICTION 5.0: The text analysis program
  20. Hui, N. H. H., Tang, V. W. K., Wu, G. H. H., & Lam, B. C. P. (June, 2009). ON-line to OFF-life? Linguistic comparison of suicide completer and attempter's online diaries. Paper presented at the International Conference on Psychology in Modern Cities, Hong Kong.
  21. O. P.John, 1999, The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives, Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 102
  22. 10.1521/jscp.2008.27.1.36 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kramer, A. D. I., Fussell, S. R., & Setlock, L. D. (2004). Text analysis as a tool for analyzing conversation in online support groups. Extended Abstracts of the 2004 Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems, (pp. 1485-1488). · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.07.017 · DOI
  25. C.Martindale, 1990, The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change
  26. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.862 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 10.1126/science.1139940 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1306 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/00224545.1989.9712089 · DOI
  30. 10.1177/0146167203029005010 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1177/026192702237953 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Odom, S. D. (2006). A qualitative and linguistic analysis of an authority issues training group. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
  33. J. W.Pennebaker, 2011, The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us
  34. 10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.274 · DOI · Paper page
  35. J. W.Pennebaker, 2008, Computerized text analysis of al-Qaeda statements, A content analysis reader, 453
  36. 10.1080/026999396380079 · DOI · Paper page
  37. J. W.Pennebaker, 2001, Linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) (Version LIWC2001)
  38. 10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.172 · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01184.x · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1006/jrpe.2002.2349 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Pennebaker, J. W., Slatcher, R. B., & Chung, C. K. (2005). Linguistic markers of psychological state through media interviews: John Kerry and John Edwards in 2004, Al Gore in 2000. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Special Issue: The Social Psychology of the 2004 US Presidential Elections, 5, 1-9. · DOI
  42. 10.1037/a0013117 · DOI
  43. Ramirez-Esparza, N., Chung, C. K., Kacewicz, E., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). The psychology of word use in depression forums in English and in Spanish. Testing two text analytic approaches. Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, (pp. 102-108).
  44. N.Ramirez-Esparza, Cross-constructions of self-schemas: American and Mexican college students., Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
  45. N.Ramirez-Esparza, 2007, La psychología del uso de las palabras: Un programa de comutadora que analiza textos en Español (The psychology of word use: A computer program that analyzes texts in Spanish)., Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 24, 85
  46. 10.1037/a0013238 · DOI
  47. 10.1080/02699930441000030 · DOI · Paper page
  48. A. J.Scholand, 2010, Social language network analysis., Proceedings of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2010, 23
  49. M.Scott, 2004, WordSmith tools 4.0
  50. J. B.Sexton, 2000, Analyzing cockpit communications: The links between language, performance, error, and workload., Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 5, 63
  51. 10.1080/10570319709374587 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01639.x · DOI
  53. 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.006 · DOI
  54. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01762.x · DOI
  55. S. W.Stirman, 2001, Word use in the poetry of suicidal and non-suicidal poets., Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 517, 10.1097/00006842-200107000-00001 · DOI · Paper page
  56. L. D.Stone, 2002, Trauma in real time: Talking and avoiding online conversations about the death of Princess Diana., Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 172, 10.1207/S15324834BASP2403_1 · DOI
  57. L. D.Stone, 2004, What was she trying to say? A linguistic analysis of Katie's diaries, Katie's diary: Unlocking the mystery of a suicide
  58. P. J.Stone, 1966, The general inquirer: A computer approach to content analysis
  59. Tausczik, Y. R. (2009). Linguistic analysis of workplace computer-mediated communication. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin.
  60. Y. R.Tausczik, Public anxiety and information seeking following H1N1 outbreak: Weblogs, newspaper articles and Wikipedia visits., Health Communication
  61. 10.3758/BF03198500 · DOI · Paper page
  62. W.Weintraub, 1989, Verbal behavior in everyday life
  63. 10.1080/10503300903179799 · DOI
  64. 10.1080/10503300903527393 · DOI
  65. 10.1026/0012-1924.54.2.85 · DOI
  66. L.Zhou, 2004, A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication., Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 139, 10.1080/07421222.2004.11045779 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W.
Venue
Applied Natural Language Processing
Publisher
IGI Global
Published
2012
Pages
206-229
DOI
10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch012
OpenAlex
W2489406233
Cited by
2,151
References
13
FWCI
251.54
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.