Content uploaded by Martin Tanis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Tanis
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://jls.sagepub.com/
Psychology
Journal of Language and Social
http://jls.sagepub.com/content/32/2/191
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12460844
October 2012
2013 32: 191 originally published online 5Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Camiel J. Beukeboom, Martin Tanis and Ivar E. Vermeulen
Introverts Are More Concrete
The Language of Extraversion: Extraverted People Talk More Abstractly,
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
at: can be foundJournal of Language and Social PsychologyAdditional services and information for
http://jls.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jls.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jls.sagepub.com/content/32/2/191.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Oct 5, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record
- May 20, 2013Version of Record >>
at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 6, 2013jls.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
32(2) 191 –201
© 2012 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/0261927X12460844
jls.sagepub.com
460844JLS32210.1177/0261927X12460844Journal
of Language and Social PsychologyBeukeboom et al.
1VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Camiel L. Beukeboom, Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan
1081, 1081HV Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Email: c.j.beukeboom@vu.nl
The Language of
Extraversion: Extraverted
People Talk More Abstractly,
Introverts Are More Concrete
Camiel J. Beukeboom1, Martin Tanis1,
and Ivar E. Vermeulen1
Abstract
To understand the impact of personality, one needs to know how personality differences
manifest themselves in language use. The present study investigates the link between
extraversion and language abstraction. Participants’ spontaneous verbal utterances
in face-to-face interactions were analyzed for language abstraction by applying the
linguistic category model, which distinguishes predicate types that convey information
in concrete or interpretative manner. We also applied the Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count (LIWC) program to relate several word categories to extraversion and language
abstraction. Results show significant positive correlations between extraversion and
both language abstraction and self-reported level of interpretation. Language abstraction
was also linked to LIWC variables (e.g., articles, numbers) previously shown to be
related to extraversion. The findings suggest that the verbal style of extraverts is
characterized by a higher level of abstract interpretation, whereas introverts tend to
stick to concrete facts.
Keywords
extraversion, linguistic category model (LCM), language abstraction, Linguistic Inquiry
Word Count (LIWC), linguistic style, communication, conversation.
Research has shown that personality differences bring about differences in language
use (Fast & Funder, 2008; Pennebaker & King, 1999). Prior studies investigated the
Short Research Report
192 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(2)
relationship between personality and language use in different types of text corpora
ranging from e-mails (Oberlander & Gill, 2006), to personal narratives (Hirsch & Peterson,
2009), recordings of conversations (Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006; Mehl &
Pennebaker, 2003), and personal blogs (Yarkoni, 2010). Mostly using the Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program (Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007), these
studies showed that the relative usage frequency of words from different categories dif-
fers between personality types. Extraversion, for instance, has been associated with
more frequent use of words related to social processes, communication, family, and
humans (Hirsch & Peterson, 2009), and individual words such as drinks, restaurant,
and dancing (Yarkoni, 2010).
It remains unclear, however, whether the observed differences reflect different
personality types producing different content (i.e., what they talk or write about) or
different style (i.e., how they talk or write). Because in most prior studies individuals
are free to choose what to talk about, personality likely influences the content of the
analyzed texts. For instance, since extraverts, compared with introverts, have more
active social lives and seek out more social situations (Mehl et al., 2006), they are
more likely to describe such situations. Consequently, their descriptions contain more
references to people, social processes, and events (Hirsch & Peterson, 2009;
Pennebaker & King, 1999; Yarkoni, 2010). Even though these findings demonstrate
that personality traits are reflected in language use, they do not reveal whether per-
sonality in general, and extraversion in particular, affects how individuals express
themselves in stylistic or structural aspects of their language use.
A structural aspect of language use that may relate to extraversion is the level of lan-
guage abstraction as defined by the linguistic category model (LCM; Semin & Fiedler,
1988). An extensive body of research shows that individual differences in language
abstraction occur even when individuals describe identical events (e.g., Beukeboom,
2009; Beukeboom & Semin, 2006). One person may opt for a concrete and descriptive
account, describing mainly visible behaviors and detail (using action verbs). Another
person may opt for an interpretive account, providing subjective views of people and
behavior and describing things that are not directly visible (e.g., feelings and traits).
Previous LIWC-based findings suggest that introverts may use more concrete and
descriptive linguistic styles than extraverts (Gill & Oberlander, 2002; Pennebaker &
King, 1999; Yarkoni, 2010). Yet, this notion has not yet been empirically tested.
If, indeed, extraverts communicate more abstractly than introverts, this has exten-
sive interpersonal consequences. Differences in language abstraction have repeatedly
been shown to induce systematic effects on recipients’ inferences. When information
is reported concretely (using action verbs; e.g., Paul pays the cashier) a verifiable
description of what happens is provided. When reported abstractly (using adjectives to
describe traits; e.g., Paul is honest), information is interpreted and generalized from
specific situations to enduring person characteristics (Semin, 2011). Differences in
language abstraction not only affect how information is perceived and memorized by
recipients, but also how conversations develop, the impression the speaker leaves, and
how information is transferred to third parties.
Beukeboom et al. 193
The present study tested whether extraversion induces differences in language
abstraction. All participants orally described the same social situations in a controlled
setting. Based on previous findings, we expected introverts to stick to concrete descrip-
tions and extraverts to provide more abstract interpretations.1
Research on Extraversion and Language Use
The introversion–extraversion dimension is a factor of the Big-Five Factor Model
(Digman, 1990). Typical extraverts are sociable, gregarious, carefree, easy going, and
optimistic. Typical introverts are quiet, introspective, reserved, and retiring. Introverts
exert seriousness and like a well-ordered mode of life (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964).
Research demonstrates that this personality dimension is reflected not only in pat-
terns of thought, feeling, and behavior but also in communication features. For
instance, extraverts speak faster (Koomen & Dijkstra, 1975), louder, and have a
broader dynamic range (Scherer, 1979). In (mostly LIWC based) studies on extraver-
sion and verbal behavior, roughly four aspects are repeatedly observed. First, extra-
verts, compared with introverts, tend to use more words overall (Gill & Oberlander,
2002; Mehl et al., 2006). Second, extraverts differ from introverts in the content of
their language. Extraverts show an increased use of words related to people and social
processes (Hirsch & Peterson, 2009; Pennebaker & King, 1999; Yarkoni, 2010). Third,
extraverts use more positive emotion words (Pennebaker & King, 1999; Yarkoni,
2010) and fewer negative emotion words (Pennebaker & King, 1999), which fits with
the consistently observed correlation between extraversion and positive affect (Watson
& Clark, 1997).
A fourth aspect of extraverts’ language use relates to stylistic (or structural) language
features and is particularly relevant to our argument about language abstraction. A close
analysis of the stylistic verbal aspects related to extraversion, as revealed by LIWC
research, suggests that introverts tend to be more concrete and precise than extraverts.
First, introverts have been shown to use more articles (e.g., a, the; Pennebaker & King,
1999), numbers, and quantifications (Gill & Oberlander, 2002; Yarkoni, 2010). Articles
by definition refer to concrete objects or events (Pennebaker & King, 1999), and num-
bers and quantifications are specifications as well (Fast & Funder, 2008). Introverts also
score higher on “making distinctions” (Pennebaker & King, 1999). That is, introverts’
language contains more exclusive words (e.g., but, except) and negations (e.g., not, no),
but less inclusion words (e.g., and, with), suggesting they are more reserved in assimilat-
ing information. Likewise, introverts use more tentative words (e.g., perhaps, maybe)
and less certainty words (e.g., absolute, always) compared with extraverts (see, Dewaele
& Furnham, 1999; Heylighen & Dewaele, 2002; Oberlander & Gill, 2006; Yarkoni,
2010). This suggests that introverts are more careful in their formulations.
Together, it appears introverts exert a more careful, precise, and focused style,
whereas extraverts exert a more imprecise and “looser” style (Gill & Oberlander,
2002). This idea corresponds with evidence on the relation between extraversion and
cognitive processing. Extraverts tend to show fast and less accurate performance in
194 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(2)
complex cognitive tasks. Introverts take more time, perform more accurately (Eysenck
& Eysenck, 1985), and excel on tasks-requiring focus, vigilance, and reflection (Harkins
& Geen, 1975). Such differences in cognitive processing are likely to be reflected in
language use. Previous research demonstrated that mood-induced differences in cogni-
tive processing style yield differences in language abstraction. A negative mood-
induced detail-focused analytic processing style results in more concrete language.
A positive mood-induced global processing style results in more abstract language
(Beukeboom, 2009; Beukeboom & de Jong, 2008; Beukeboom & Semin, 2006).
In sum, extraverts appear to—both verbally and cognitively—exhibit a more
imprecise and “looser” style with reduced concreteness, whereas introverts exhibit a
more analytic, careful, and focused style. We therefore expected higher levels of extra-
version to relate to increased levels of language abstraction as defined by the LCM
(Semin & Fiedler, 1988). The LCM offers a taxonomy of predicate types, particularly
relevant to descriptions of social situations. It distinguishes four linguistic categories
with increasing levels of abstraction. Most concrete are descriptive action verbs. These
describe single, observable actions (e.g., Jack talks to Sue). Use of descriptive action
verbs reflects a detail-focused, analytic processing style because it preserves percep-
tual features of the event. Most abstract are state verbs (e.g., Jack loves Sue) and adjec-
tives (Jack is flirtatious), which describe behavior generally, provide a global summary
of actions, and show no reference to specific acts. Use of more abstract predicates
reflects an assimilative, interpretive processing style, since these words decontextual-
ize events and convey interpretative accounts (Semin & Fiedler, 1988).
To test our hypothesis, we used the LCM taxonomy to analyze the abstraction of
participants’ oral descriptions of social situations and related results to participants’
independently obtained extraversion score. In addition, an LIWC analysis was con-
ducted testing whether the previously mentioned word categories relate to extraver-
sion and language abstraction.
Method
Participants and Design
A random sample of Dutch employees of a large company located in Amsterdam was
approached by e-mail; 40 (19 women) volunteered to participate. Ages ranged from
19 to 59 years (M = 34.4 years, SD = 8.55). In a first session, participants orally
described five photos depicting a social situation; the descriptions (in Dutch) were
later coded for language abstraction. Three days later, participants filled out a ques-
tionnaire measuring extraversion.
Procedure
On arrival, participants learned the study consisted of two independent studies, the
current study on communication and one questionnaire to be administered 3 days
Beukeboom et al. 195
later. Each participant was seated at a table opposite the experimenter and asked to
describe five photos orally. Descriptions were tape recorded. All photos depicted
ambiguous social situations with two or more people and were presented on paper
sheets in random order. The experimenter gave the following instructions: “Please
describe what you see in this picture. It is about the behavior of the depicted people.
There are no right or wrong answers; it is about what you see.” During the partici-
pants’ descriptions, the experimenter kept reactions to a minimum. Questions were
responded to by merely repeating instructions. When participants appeared to be fin-
ished describing a photo the experimenter asked once whether they had anything to
add. If not, the next photo was presented.
Immediately after, participants filled out a questionnaire using 7-point scales rang-
ing from 1 = not at all to 7 = very much. First, they reported their current mood on two
items: “To what extent do you experience positive feelings/negative feelings at this
moment?” (M = 4.85, SD = 0.66; M = 2.20, SD = 0.91, respectively).
Second, they reported their task appreciation (four items; Cronbach’s α = .77; M =
5.16, SD = 0.98), for example, “How much did you enjoy describing the pictures?”
Third, six items measured participants’ self-reported level of interpretation in
describing the photos (α = .77; M = 3.98, SD = 0.87), for example, “To what extent did
you describe things that were not directly visible in the pictures?” Finally, they reported
some demographics.2
Three days later, participants filled out a paper questionnaire, measuring extraver-
sion (α = .93; M = 3.43, SD = 0.64) and neuroticism (cf. emotional stability) using the
respective 40 items of the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (Hendriks, Hofstee, De
Raad, & Angleitner, 1995).
Language abstraction. To analyze language use, recordings of participants’ spoken
descriptions were literally transcribed (Mnumber of words = 333, SD = 158). All text used
to describe people and their behavior was coded by a judge—blind to all participant
variables—according to the LCM (Semin & Fiedler, 1988; see Coenen, Hedebouw,
& Semin, 2006, for guidelines). Each verb and adjective was coded and scored as
follows: number of descriptive-action verbs * 1, interpretive-action verbs/state-
action verbs * 2, state-verbs * 3, adjectives * 4. Based on these scores, the mean
level of abstraction was computed for each photo by adding the scores and dividing
that by the total number of coded predicates (correcting for description length). The
dependent variable was the mean level of abstraction for the five descriptions (M =
2.46, SD = 0.38). Scores varied between 1 (extremely concrete, only descriptive-
action verbs) and 4 (extremely abstract, only adjectives). A random selection of the
data (50%) was independently coded by a second judge to check for reliability.
Agreement between the two judges was high: r(20) = .91, indicating a good
reliability.
LIWC. In addition, we conducted a LIWC word count analysis using the Dutch
dictionary in the LIWC2007 software (Pennebaker et al., 2007), which computes the
percentage of words from different categories. We particularly looked at articles,
numbers (numerals included), references to humans, and we computed a “making
196 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(2)
distinctions” factor (Pennebaker & King, 1999) using the formula: discrepancies +
exclusion words + tentative words + negations − inclusion words.
Results
Consistent with our hypothesis, extraversion correlated positively with coded lan-
guage abstraction (see Table 1), the higher participants’ extraversion score, the higher
their level of abstraction in describing the five photos. Moreover, extraversion corre-
lated positively with self-reported level of interpretation. This provides complemen-
tary evidence that extraverts tend to use more abstract language than introverts, who
use more descriptive and concrete language.3
Next, we analyzed several control variables that might explain the observed rela-
tions. Extraversion was unrelated to mood, task appreciation, number of words used,
and length of the interview in seconds (rs between −.03 and .14, ns). Moreover, after
adding these five variables as predictors to a linear regression of extraversion on lan-
guage abstraction, extraversion still significantly predicted language abstraction, β =
.44, t(33) = 2.90, p =.01. The same held when self-reported level of interpretation was
the dependent variable, β = .36, t(33) = 2.52, p = .02. Clearly, the control variables do
not explain relations between extraversion and language use.
Looking at LIWC variables that were previously shown to be related to extraver-
sion, we observed that use of articles, numbers, and specific references to humans,
negatively related to language abstraction and self-reported level of interpretation
(Table 1). Given that these elements reflect specifications in reference (e.g., the man,
two kids, rather than “they”), these findings support the idea that extraversion is
reflected in a stylistic dimension of language ranging from concreteness and precision
to abstraction and interpretation.
Notably, LIWC’s “making distinctions” factor was unrelated to language abstrac-
tion, although it was related to self-reported level of interpretation. A look at the
Table 1. Correlations between Extraversion, Language Abstraction, Self-Reported Level of
Interpretation, and LIWC Variables.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Extraversion 1 .35* .33* −.30†
−.21 −.13 .02
2. Language abstraction 1 .28†
−.35* −.40* −.46** .02
3. Self reported interpretation 1 −.46** −.62** −.65** .43**
4. Articles 1 .43** .28†
−.24
5. Numbers 1 .69** −.45**
6. Humans 1−.46**
7. Making distinctions 1
Note: N = 40; LIWC = Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.
†.05 > p < .1. *p < .04. **p < .01.
Beukeboom et al. 197
separate factor elements showed that two were significantly correlated to self-reported
level of interpretation, namely “discrepancies” (would, should, could; r = .34, p = .03)
and “exclusive words” (but, without, except; r = .40, p = .01). These elements possibly
reflect explicit speculations about what the depicted actors think and why they do
things (e.g., It could be . . ., I would think that . . ., but . . .). Such speculations may be
described either concretely (e.g., He could be writing a letter) or abstractly (e.g., He
could be lonely), which may explain why this factor is unrelated to language abstrac-
tion as measured by LCM. However, when judging their own level of interpretation in
hindsight participants likely do consider whether they have speculated about things
not visible in the pictures.
The correlations between extraversion and the other LIWC variables were in the
expected direction, yet did not reach conventional levels of significance. This is likely
because of the relatively small sample compared with previous studies in which these
variables related significantly to extraversion.
Together, our results suggest that extraversion positively relates to a stylistic dimen-
sion of language with concreteness and precision on the one end and abstraction and
interpretation on the other.
Discussion
The present findings revealed a relation between extraversion and language abstrac-
tion. Participants’ verbal utterances when describing photos in face-to-face interactions
were coded for language abstraction and related to participants’ independently obtained
extraversion score. Results showed a significant correlation; the higher the participants’
extraversion score, the higher their level of language abstraction. A complementary
result was found for participants’ self-reported level of interpretation. Moreover, we
showed that both abstraction variables related to relevant stylistic LIWC variables that
prior research associated to extraversion (Fast & Funder, 2008; Gill & Oberlander,
2002; Pennebaker & King, 1999). Particularly, an increased use of articles, numbers,
specific references to humans, and (partly) “making distinctions,” covaries with
increased language concreteness. This suggests that introverts’ linguistic style is rela-
tively concrete and descriptive, whereas extraverts are more abstract and interpretative.
The findings are important because a large body of research shows the effects of
language abstraction on the types of inferences that recipients draw (Semin, 2011).
Abstract language conveys more information about the subjects’ personality and less
about specific behavioral situations or contexts. As a result, abstractly described behav-
ior (e.g., “Camiel is unfriendly”) appears more endurable, as more likely to be repeated,
and is less verifiable. Concretely described behavior, in contrast (e.g., “Camiel yells at
Martin”), is more likely attributed to contextual causes, since it maintains a reference to
a concrete empirical event (Semin & Fiedler, 1988). Recent research also showed that
increasing linguistic concreteness positively impacts judgments of truth (Hansen &
Wänke, 2010). Thus, an introvert’s linguistic style would induce more situational attri-
butions and a higher perception of trustworthiness than an extraverts’ style.
198 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(2)
Next to influencing how information is perceived and memorized by recipients,
linguistic styles likely also influence how conversations develop, the impression
speakers leave, and subsequent representation of information to third parties.
Research showed that conversations between two introverts are more serious and
have a greater topic focus (i.e., discussing one topic in depth), whereas conversa-
tions between extraverts are more expansive and characterized by a wider range of
topics (Thorne, 1987). Differences in linguistic style may thus feed through to the
course of conversations.
One interesting topic that future research may address pertains to possible underly-
ing mechanisms. First, extraverts have been shown to tend toward fast and less accu-
rate performance in cognitive tasks, whereas introverts tend to take more time and are
more careful and accurate (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; Harkins & Geen, 1975). In
conversations this would result in introverts being more thoughtful, reflecting more
before speaking, which is in line with introverts’ lower speech rates (Koomen &
Dijkstra, 1975). Increased reflection would make introverts’ speech style more precise
but also less fluent and spontaneous (Heylighen & Dewaele, 2002).
Second, by definition extraverts and introverts differ in how they behave in inter-
personal situations. Prior research suggests that introverts behave more cautiously
because of fear of punishment (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Using concrete descrip-
tions could be regarded as cautious verbal behavior because these are less likely to
induce disagreement than abstract descriptions (Semin & Fiedler, 1988). While intro-
verts may stick to the facts out of fear of disagreement (Thorne, 1987), typical extra-
verts are excitement-seekers (Eysenck, 1981) and may be less hesitant to provide
subjective interpretations. They may even use abstract interpretations to encourage
more lively conversations (Thorne, 1987).
To conclude, our study is the first to link extraversion to language abstraction as
defined by the LCM (Semin & Fiedler, 1988), and additionally links language abstrac-
tion to several LIWC variables previously related to extraversion. Our results suggest
that extraversion induces stylistic differences in language use that show even when
describing the exact same content. By talking at different levels of abstraction, extra-
verts and introverts report information differently, and induce different recipient infer-
ences, memories, and subsequent representations of the information exchanged.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Pluk Bakker for collecting the data.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Beukeboom et al. 199
Notes
1. We conceptualized and measured extraversion as a continuous dimension rather than a
dichotomous classification. For the sake of brevity, however, we use the terms extravert and
introvert to refer to individuals who are relatively high or low on the extraversion dimension.
2. The full questionnaire is available on request from the first author (c.j.beukeboom@vu.nl).
3. Together with extraversion, we also administered neuroticism. This variable showed no
relations with our measures of language use, it was negatively correlated with extraversion,
r(40) = −.45, p = .003.
References
Beukeboom, C. J. (2009). When words feel right: How affective expressions of listeners
change a speaker’s language use. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 747-756.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.572
Beukeboom, C. J., & de Jong, E. M. (2008). When feelings speak: How affective and proprio-
ceptive cues change language abstraction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27,
110-122. doi:10.1177/0261927X07313644
Beukeboom, C. J., & Semin, G. R. (2006). How mood turns on language. Journal of Experimen-
tal Social Psychology, 42, 553-566. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.005
Coenen, L., Hedebouw, L., & Semin, G. R. (2006). Measuring abstraction: The linguis-
tic category model. Retrieved from http://www.cratylus.org/resources/uploadedFiles/
1151434261594-8567.pdf
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic
research. Language Learning, 19, 509-544. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00098
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review
of Psychology, 41, 417-440. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). A model for personality. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences: A natural
science approach. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. London,
England: Hodder & Stoughton.
Fast, L. A., & Funder, D. C. (2008). Personality as manifest in word use: Correlations with self-
report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94,
334-346. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.334
Gill, A., & Oberlander, J. (2002). Taking care of the linguistic features of extraversion. In Pro-
ceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 363-368).
Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguis-
tic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 36, 1576-1588. doi:10.1177/0146167210386238
Harkins, S. G., & Geen, R. G. (1975). Discriminability and criterion differences between
extraverts and introverts during vigilance. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 335-340.
doi:10.1016/0092-6566(75)90007-0
200 Journal of Language and Social Psychology 32(2)
Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., De Raad, B., & Angleitner, A. (1995). The Five-Factor
Personality Inventory (FFPI). Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Variation in the contextuality of language: An empiri-
cal measure. Foundations of Science, 7, 293-340.
Hirsch, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). Personality and language use in self-narratives. Journal
of Research in Personality, 43, 524-527. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.006
Koomen, W., & Dijkstra, W. (1975). Effects of question length on verbal behavior in a
bias-reduced interview situation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 399-403.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050312
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat:
Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 862-877. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.862
Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social life: A psychometric analysis of
students’ daily social environments and natural conversations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 857-870. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.857
Oberlander, J., & Gill, A. J. (2006). Language with character: A stratified corpus comparison
of individual differences in e-mail communication. Discourse Processes, 42, 239-270.
doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4203_1
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count:
LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual dif-
ference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312. doi:10.1037//0022-
3514.77.6.1296
Scherer, K. R. (1979). Personality markers in speech. In K. R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social
markers in speech (pp. 147-209). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Semin, G. R. (2011). The Linguistic Category Model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1., pp. 309-326).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing
persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
558-568. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.54.4.558
Thorne, A. (1987). The press of personality: A study of conversations between introverts and extroverts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 718-726. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.4.718
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In R. Hogan,
R. Johnson & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767-794). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale analysis of personality and
word use among bloggers. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 363-373. doi:10.1016/j.
jrp.2010.04.001
Author Biographies
Camiel J. Beukeboom is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Science at
VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on interpersonal communication
Beukeboom et al. 201
and language use, with a specific focus on linguistic bias and the antecedents and consequences
of language abstraction and negation use.
Martin Tanis is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Science at VU
University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on online social behavior and
communication with a special interest in intra- and intergroup processes.
Ivar E. Vermeulen is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Science at
VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses mostly on implicit processes
in persuasive and group communication.
