Technical ReportPDF Available

Figures

Content may be subject to copyright.
TheDevelopmentandPsychometric
PropertiesofLIWC2015
JamesW.Pennebaker,RyanL.Boyd,
KaylaJordan,andKateBlackburn
TheUniversityofTexasatAustin
Emailcorrespondenceshouldbesenttopennebaker@mail.utexas.eduorryanboyd@utexas.edu.
OthercorrespondenceshouldbesenttoJamesW.Pennebaker,DepartmentofPsychology,The
UniversityofTexasatAustin,108E.DeanKeetonStopA8000,Austin,TX787121043.The
LIWC2015programisacommercialproductdistributedbyPennebakerConglomeratesfor
researchpurposesandbyReceptiviti,Incforcommercialpurposes.AllprofitstoPennebakerfor
theresearchbasedversionaredonatedtotheDepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofTexasat
Austin.
Theofficialreferencetothispaperis:
Pennebaker,J.W.,Boyd,R.L.,Jordan,K.,&Blackburn,K.(2015).Thedevelopmentand
psychometricpropertiesofLIWC2015
.Austin,TX:UniversityofTexasatAustin.DOI:
10.15781/T29G6Z
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page1
TheDevelopmentandPsychometricPropertiesof
LIWC2015
Thewayspeopleusewordsintheirdailylivescanproviderichinformationabouttheirbeliefs,
fears,thinkingpatterns,socialrelationships,andpersonalities.FromthetimeofFreud’swritings
aboutslipsofthetonguetotheearlydaysofcomputerbasedtextanalysis,researchersbegan
amassingincreasinglycompellingevidencethatthewordsweusehavetremendous
psychologicalvalue(Gottschalk&Glaser,1969;Stone,Dunphy,Smith,&Ogilvie,1966;
Weintraub,1989).
Althoughpromising,theearlycomputermethodsflounderedbecauseofthesheercomplexityof
thetask.Extensivesamplesoftextwerenotdigitized,computerswereslowandunwieldy,and
therewaslittleagreementaboutwhichfeaturesofnaturallanguageweremostrelatedto
psychologicalstates.Everythingchangedinthe1990swiththeadventofefficientdesktop
computers,improveddatastoragetechnology,andtheexplosionoftheinternet.Thesefactors
allowedfortheeasycollectionoflargestoresofbooks,conversations,andotherdigitizedtext
samples.
Inordertoprovideanefficientandeffectivemethodforstudyingthevariousemotional,
cognitive,andstructuralcomponentspresentinindividuals’verbalandwrittenspeechsamples,
weoriginallydevelopedatextanalysisapplicationcalledLinguisticInquiryandWordCount,or
LIWC.ThefirstLIWCapplicationwasdevelopedaspartofanexploratorystudyoflanguage
anddisclosure(Francis,1993;Pennebaker,1993).Thesecond(LIWC2001)andthird
(LIWC2007)versionsupdatedtheoriginalapplicationwithanexpandeddictionaryandamore
modernsoftwaredesign(Pennebaker,Francis,&Booth,2001;Pennebaker,Booth,&Francis,
2007).
Themostrecentevolution,LIWC2015(Pennebaker,Booth,Boyd,&Francis,2015),has
significantlyalteredboththedictionaryandthesoftwareoptions.Importantly,theLIWC2015
softwareanddictionaryarenew,ratherthanabasicupdatetopreviousversionsofLIWC.As
withpreviousversions,however,theprogramisdesignedtoanalyzeindividualormultiple
languagefilesquicklyandefficiently.Atthesametime,theprogramattemptstobetransparent
andflexibleinitsoperation,allowingtheusertoexploreworduseinmultipleways.
TheLIWC2015Framework
BoththestandarddownloadableandwebbasedversionsoftheLIWC2015applicationrelyon
aninternaldefaultdictionarythatdefineswhichwordsshouldbecountedinthetargettextfiles.
NotethattheLIWC2015processorisanexecutablefileandcannotbereadoropened.Toavoid
confusioninthesubsequentdiscussion,wordscontainedintextsthatarereadandanalyzedby
LIWC2015arereferredtoastargetwords
.WordsintheLIWC2015dictionaryfilewillbe
referredtoasdictionarywords
.Groupsofdictionarywordsthattapaparticulardomain(e.g.,
negativeemotionwords)arevariouslyreferredtoassubdictionariesorwordcategories.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page2
TheLIWC2015MainTextProcessingModule
Becausethesoftwareapplicationiswritteninacrossplatformlanguage,itrunsidenticallyon
PCandMaccomputersviatheJavaVirtualMachine.LIWC2015isdesignedtoacceptwrittenor
transcribedverbaltextwhichhasbeenstoredasadigital,machinereadablefileinoneof
multipleformats,includingplaintext,PDF,RTF,orstandardMicrosoftWordfiles(i.e.,.docand
.docx).Unlikepreviousversions,thesoftwarecannowprocesstextonalinebylinebasiswithin
andacrosscolumnsinsideofmultiplespreadsheetformats,includingthosesavedas.xls,.xlsx,
and.csvfiles.
Duringoperation,LIWC2015accessesasingletextfile,agroupoffiles,ortextswithina
spreadsheetandanalyzeseachsequentially.Foreachfile,LIWC2015readsonetargetwordata
time.Aseachtargetwordisprocessed,thedictionaryfileissearched,lookingforadictionary
matchwiththecurrenttargetword.Ifthetargetwordismatchedwithadictionaryword,the
appropriatewordcategoryscale(orscales)forthatwordisincremented.Asthetargettextfileis
beingprocessed,countsforvariousstructuralcompositionelements(e.g.,wordcountand
sentencepunctuation)arealsoincremented.
Foreachtextfile,approximately90outputvariablesarewrittenasonelineofdatatoanoutput
file.Thisdatarecordincludesthefilenameandwordcount,4summarylanguagevariables
(analyticalthinking,clout,authenticity,andemotionaltone),3generaldescriptorcategories
(wordspersentence,percentoftargetwordscapturedbythedictionary,andpercentofwordsin
thetextthatarelongerthansixletters),21standardlinguisticdimensions(e.g.,percentageof
wordsinthetextthatarepronouns,articles,auxiliaryverbs,etc.),41wordcategoriestapping
psychologicalconstructs(e.g.,affect,cognition,biologicalprocesses,drives),6personalconcern
categories(e.g.,work,home,leisureactivities),5informallanguagemarkers(assents,fillers,
swearwords,netspeak),and12punctuationcategories(periods,commas,etc).Acompletelistof
thestandardLIWC2015scalesisincludedinTable1.
TheDefaultLIWC2015Dictionary
TheLIWC2015Dictionaryistheheartofthetextanalysisstrategy.ThedefaultLIWC2015
Dictionaryiscomposedofalmost6,400words,wordstems,andselectemoticons.Each
dictionaryentryadditionallydefinesoneormorewordcategoriesorsubdictionaries.For
example,thewordcried
ispartoffivewordcategories:sadness,negativeemotion,overallaffect,
verbs,andpastfocus.Hence,ifthewordcried
isfoundinthetargettext,eachofthesefive
subdictionaryscalescoreswillbeincremented.Asinthisexample,manyoftheLIWC2015
categoriesarearrangedhierarchically.Allsadnesswords,bydefinition,belongtothebroader
“negativeemotion”category,aswellasthe“overallaffectwords”category.Notetoothatword
stemscanbecapturedbytheLIWC2015system.Forexample,thedictionaryincludesthestem
hungr*
whichallowsforanytargetwordthatmatchesthefirstfiveletterstobecountedasan
ingestionword(includinghungry,hungrier,hungriest).Theasterisk,then,denotesthe
acceptanceofallletters,hyphens,ornumbersfollowingitsappearance.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page3
EachofthedefaultLIWC2015categoriesiscomposedofalistofdictionarywordsthatdefine
thatscale.Table1providesacomprehensivelistofthedefaultLIWC2015dictionarycategories,
scales,samplescalewords,andrelevantscalewordcounts.
Table1.LIWC2015OutputVariableInformation
Category
Abbrev
Examples
Wordsin
category
Internal
Consistency
(Uncorrectedα)
Internal
Consistency
(Correctedα)
Wordcount
WC
SummaryLanguageVariables
Analyticalthinking
Analytic
Clout
Clout
Authentic
Authentic
Emotionaltone
Tone
Words/sentence
WPS
Words>6letters
Sixltr
Dictionarywords
Dic
LinguisticDimensions
Totalfunctionwords
funct
it,to,no,very
491
.05
.24
Totalpronouns
pronoun
I,them,itself
153
.25
.67
Personalpronouns
ppron
I,them,her
93
.20
.61
1stperssingular
i
I,me,mine
24
.41
.81
1stpersplural
we
we,us,our
12
.43
.82
2ndperson
you
you,your,thou
30
.28
.70
3rdperssingular
shehe
she,her,him
17
.49
.85
3rdpersplural
they
they,their,they’d
11
.37
.78
Impersonalpronouns
ipron
it,it’s,those
59
.28
.71
Articles
article
a,an,the
3
.05
.23
Prepositions
prep
to,with,above
74
.04
.18
Auxiliaryverbs
auxverb
am,will,have
141
.16
.54
CommonAdverbs
adverb
very,really
140
.43
.82
Conjunctions
conj
and,but,whereas
43
.14
.50
Negations
negate
no,not,never
62
.29
.71
OtherGrammar
Commonverbs
verb
eat,come,carry
1000
.05
.23
Commonadjectives
adj
free,happy,long
764
.04
.19
Comparisons
compare
greater,best,after
317
.08
.35
Interrogatives
interrog
how,when,what
48
.18
.57
Numbers
number
second,thousand
36
.45
.83
Quantifiers
quant
few,many,much
77
.23
.64
PsychologicalProcesses
Affectiveprocesses
affect
happy,cried
1393
.18
.57
Positiveemotion
posemo
love,nice,sweet
620
.23
.64
Negativeemotion
negemo
hurt,ugly,nasty
744
.17
.55
Anxiety
anx
worried,fearful
116
.31
.73
Anger
anger
hate,kill,annoyed
230
.16
.53
Sadness
sad
crying,grief,sad
136
.28
.70
Socialprocesses
social
mate,talk,they
756
.51
.86
Family
family
daughter,dad,aunt
118
.55
.88
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page4
Category
Abbrev
Examples
Wordsin
category
Internal
Consistency
(Uncorrectedα)
Internal
Consistency
(Correctedα)
Friends
friend
buddy,neighbor
95
.20
.60
Femalereferences
female
girl,her,mom
124
.53
.87
Malereferences
male
boy,his,dad
116
.52
.87
Cognitiveprocesses
cogproc
cause,know,ought
797
.65
.92
Insight
insight
think,know
259
.47
.84
Causation
cause
because,effect
135
.26
.67
Discrepancy
discrep
should,would
83
.34
.76
Tentative
tentat
maybe,perhaps
178
.44
.83
Certainty
certain
always,never
113
.31
.73
Differentiation
differ
hasn’t,but,else
81
.38
.78
Perceptualprocesses
percept
look,heard,feeling
436
.17
.55
See
see
view,saw,seen
126
.46
.84
Hear
hear
listen,hearing
93
.27
.69
Feel
feel
feels,touch
128
.24
.65
Biologicalprocesses
bio
eat,blood,pain
748
.29
.71
Body
body
cheek,hands,spit
215
.52
.87
Health
health
clinic,flu,pill
294
.09
.37
Sexual
sexual
horny,love,incest
131
.37
.78
Ingestion
ingest
dish,eat,pizza
184
.67
.92
Drives
drives
1103
.39
.80
Affiliation
affiliation
ally,friend,social
248
.40
.80
Achievement
achieve
win,success,better
213
.41
.81
Power
power
superior,bully
518
.35
.76
Reward
reward
take,prize,benefit
120
.27
.69
Risk
risk
danger,doubt
103
.26
.68
Timeorientations
TimeOrient
Pastfocus
focuspast
ago,did,talked
341
.23
.64
Presentfocus
focuspresent
today,is,now
424
.24
.66
Futurefocus
focusfuture
may,will,soon
97
.26
.68
Relativity
relativ
area,bend,exit
974
.50
.86
Motion
motion
arrive,car,go
325
.36
.77
Space
space
down,in,thin
360
.45
.83
Time
time
end,until,season
310
.39
.79
Personalconcerns
Work
work
job,majors,xerox
444
.69
.93
Leisure
leisure
cook,chat,movie
296
.50
.86
Home
home
kitchen,landlord
100
.46
.83
Money
money
audit,cash,owe
226
.60
.90
Religion
relig
altar,church
174
.64
.91
Death
death
bury,coffin,kill
74
.39
.79
Informallanguage
informal
380
.46
.84
Swearwords
swear
fuck,damn,shit
131
.45
.83
Netspeak
netspeak
btw,lol,thx
209
.42
.82
Assent
assent
agree,OK,yes
36
.10
.39
Nonfluencies
nonflu
er,hm,umm
19
.27
.69
Fillers
filler
Imean,youknow
14
.06
.27
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page5
Table1Notes:“Wordsincategory”referstothenumberofdifferentdictionarywordsandstemsthatmakeupthe
variablecategory.Allalphaswerecomputedonasampleof~181,000textfilesfromseveralofourlanguage
corpora(seeTable2).UncorrectedinternalconsistencyalphasarebasedonCronbachestimates;correctedalphas
arebasedonSpearmanBrown.SeetheReliabilityandValiditysectionbelow.NotethattheLIWC2015dictionary
generallyarrangescategorieshierarchically.Therearesomeexceptionstothehierarchyrules.Forexample,Social
processes
includealargegroupofwordsthatdenotesocialprocesses,includingallnonfirstpersonsingular
personalpronounsaswellasverbsthatsuggesthumaninteraction(talking,sharing)manyofthesewordsdonot
belongtoanyoftheSocialprocesses
subcategories.AnotherexampleisRelativity
,whichincludesalargenumber
ofwordsthatcannotbefoundinanyofitssubcategories.
LIWC2015DictionaryDevelopment
TheselectionofwordsdefiningtheLIWC2015categoriesinvolvedmultiplestepsoverseveral
years.Originally,theideawastoidentifyagroupofwordsthattappedbasicemotionaland
cognitivedimensionsoftenstudiedinsocial,health,andpersonalitypsychology.Withtime,the
domainofwordcategoriesexpandedconsiderably.
Themostrecentversionofthedictionary,LIWC2015,isacompletelynewversioncomparedto
earlierones.Dictionariescannowaccommodatenumbers,punctuation,andevenshortphrases.
Theseadditionsallowtheusertoread"netspeak"languagethatiscommoninTwitterand
Facebookposts,aswellasSMS(shortmessagingservice,a.k.a.“textmessaging”)andSMSlike
modesofcommunication(e.g.,Snapchat,instantmessaging).Forexample,"b4"iscodedasa
prepositionand":)"iscodedasapositiveemotionword.
Ahandfulofnewcategorieshavebeenaddedandasmallnumberhavebeenremoved.Withthe
adventofmorepowerfulanalyticmethodsandmorediverselanguagesamples,wehavebeen
abletobuildmoreinternallyconsistentlanguagedictionaries.Thismeansthatmanyofthe
dictionariesinpreviousLIWCversionsmayhavethesamename,butthewordsmakingupthe
dictionarieshavebeenaltered(categoriessubjectedtomajorchangesarepresentedbelow).We
presenthereacompleteoverviewoftheprocessusedtocreatetheLIWC2015dictionary.
Step1.WordCollection.
InthedesignanddevelopmentoftheLIWCcategoryscales,setsof
wordswerefirstgeneratedforeachconceptualdimension,usingtheLIWC2007dictionaryasa
startingpoint.WithinthePsychologicalProcessescategory,forexample,theemotion
subdictionarieswerebasedonwordsfromseveralsources,includingpreviousversionsofthe
LIWCdictionary.Wedrewoncommonemotionratingscales,suchasthePANAS(Watson,
Clark,&Tellegen,1988),Roget’sThesaurus,andstandardEnglishdictionaries.Followingthe
creationofpreliminarycategorywordlists,26judgesindividuallygeneratedwordlistsforeach
category,thengroupbrainstormingsessionsamong48judgeswereheldinwhichwords
relevanttothevariousscalesweregeneratedandaddedtotheinitialscalelists.Similarschemes
wereusedfortheothersubjectivedictionarycategories.
Step2.JudgeRatingPhase.
Oncethegrandlistofwordswasamassed,eachwordinthe
dictionarywasexaminedbyagroupof48judgesandqualitativelyratedintermsof“goodness
offit”foreachcategory.Inorderforawordtoremaininagivencategory,amajorityofjudges
hadtoagreeonitsinclusion.Incasesofdisputes,severalcorporaandonlinesourceswere
referencedtodetermineaword’scommonuse,inflection,andmeaning.Wordsforwhichjudges
couldnotdecideonappropriatecategoryplacementwereremovedfromthedictionary.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page6
Step3.BaseRateAnalyses.
Onceaworkingversionofthedictionarywasconstructedfrom
judges’ratings,textsfromseveralsourceswereanalyzedusingtheMeaningExtractionHelper
(MEH;Boyd,2015)todeterminehowfrequentlydictionarywordswereusedinvarious
contexts.Thesesourcesincludedblogposts,spokenlanguagestudies,Twitter,Facebook,novels,
studentwritings,andseveralothers.Dictionarywordsthatdidnotoccuratleastonceinmultiple
corporawereomittedfromthedictionary.
Step4.CandidateWordListGeneration.
Inordertoexpandthedictionary,weexploredseveral
sourcesoflanguageforhighfrequencywordsthathadnotbeenaddedbyjudges.UsingMEH,
highfrequencywordswerequantifiedasapercentageoftotalwordsforhundredsofthousands
oftextfilesfrommultiplestudiesandsources.Forseverallinguisticcategories(e.g.,verbs,
adjectives),theStanfordNaturalLanguageToolkit(NLTK;Toutanova,Klein,Manning,&
Singer,2003)wasusedinconjunctionwithMEHtoidentifycommonwords.Allcandidate
wordswerethencorrelatedwithalldictionarycategoriesinordertodetectcommonwordsthat
werenotyetincludedinthedictionary.Wordsthatcorrelatedpositivelywithdictionary
categorieswereaddedtoalistofcandidatewordsforpossibleinclusion.Followingthis,48
judgesreviewedthecandidatelistandvotedon1)whetherwordsshouldbeincludedinthe
dictionaryand2)whetherwordswereasoundconceptualfitforspecificdictionarycategories.
Judges’ratingprocedureswereparalleltothoseoutlinedinStep2
.
Step5.PsychometricEvaluation.
Followingallpreviouslydescribedsteps,eachlanguage
categorywasseparatedintoitsconstituentwords.Eachwordwasthenquantifiedasapercentage
oftotalwordsfor~181,000textfileshailingfrom5corpora,totalling~231,000,000words(see
Table2).Allwordsforeachcategoryweretreatedasa“response”andusedtocomputeinternal
consistencystatisticsforeachlanguagecategoryasawhole.Wordsthatweredetrimentaltothe
internalconsistencyoftheiroverarchinglanguagecategorywereaddedtoacandidatelistof
wordsforomissionfromthefinaldictionary.Agroupof28judgesthenreviewedthelistof
candidatewordsandvotedonwhetherwordsshouldberetained.Wordsforwhichnomajority
couldbeestablishedwereomitted.Severallinguisticcategories,suchaspronouns
andadverbs
,
constituteestablishedlinguisticconstructsandwerethereforenotapartoftheomissionprocess.
Wediscussthepsychometricevaluationproceduresinextensivedetailinthenextsection.
Step6.RefinementPhase.
AfterSteps1through5werecomplete,theywererepeatedintheir
entirety.Thiswasdonetocatchanypossiblemistakes/oversightsthatmighthaveoccurred
throughoutthedictionarycreationprocess.Notethatthepsychometricsofeachlanguage
categorychangednegligiblyduringeachrefinementphase.Duringthelaststageofthefinal
refinementphase,twojudgesreviewedthedictionaryformistakes.
Step7.AdditionofSummaryVariables.
AmajorchangefromearlierversionsofLIWCistheinclusionoffournewsummaryvariables:
analyticalthinking(Pennebakeretal.,2014),clout(Kacewiczetal.,2012),authenticity
(Newmanetal.,2003),andemotionaltone(Cohnetal.,2004).Eachsummaryvariablewas
derivedfrompreviouslypublishedfindingsfromourlabandconvertedtopercentilesbasedon
standardizedscoresfromlargecomparisonsamples.Itmustbeemphasizedthatthesummary
variablesaretheonlynontransparentdimensionsintheLIWC2015output.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page7
ANoteabouttheLIWC2015LanguageCategories
ForthosewhoarefamiliarwithLIWC2007,someoftheLIWC2015categoriesandresultswill
beabitjarring.Someoftheoriginalcategorieshavebeenremoved,largelyduetotheir
consistentlylowbaserates,lowinternalreliability,ortheirinfrequentusebyresearchers:
Pasttenseverbs
Presenttenseverbs
Futuretenseverbs
Humanwords
Inhibitionwords
Inclusives
Exclusives
Thefollowingisalistofcategoriesthatareeithera)newtoLIWC2015,orb)substantially
differentfromtheircounterpartsinpreviousversions.WhileotherLIWC2015categoriesmay
alsobeslightlydifferentfromthoseinpreviousversions,categoriesfrompreviousversionsof
LIWCthatarepresentedinthelistbelowhaveundergonesubstantialrevision.
Commonverbs
Commonadjectives
Commoncomparison
words
Interrogatives
Femalereferences
Malereferences
Cognitiveprocesses
Differentiationwords
Drives
Affiliationwords
Achievementwords
Powerwords
Riskwords
Rewardwords
Pastfocuswords
Presentfocuswords
Futurefocuswords
Informallanguage
Netspeakwords
Quantifiers
NotethattheLIWC2015applicationcomeswiththeoriginalinternaldictionariesforboth
LIWC2001andLIWC2007forthosewhowanttorelyonolderversionsofthedictionaryaswell
astocompareLIWC2015analyseswiththoseprovidedbyolderversionsofthesoftware.
LIWC2015:InternalReliabilityandExternalValidity
Assessingthereliabilityandvalidityoftextanalysisprogramsisatrickybusiness.Onthe
surface,onewouldthinkthatyoucoulddeterminetheinternalreliabilityofaLIWCscalethe
samewayitisdonewithaquestionnaire.Withaquestionnairethattapsangeroraggression,for
example,participantscompleteaselfreportaskinganumberofquestionsabouttheirfeelingsor
behaviorsrelatedtoanger.Reliabilitycoefficientsarecomputedbycorrelatingpeople’s
responsestothevariousquestions.Themorehighlytheycorrelate,thereasoninggoes,themore
thequestionnaireitemsallmeasurethesamething.Voila!Thescaleisdeemedinternally
consistent.
Asimilarstrategycanbeusedwithwords.Butbewarned:thepsychometricsofnaturallanguage
usearenotasstraightforwardaswithquestionnaires.Thereasonisobviousonceyouthink
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page8
aboutit.Onceyousaysomething,yougenerallydon’tneedtosayitagaininthesameparagraph
oressay.Thenatureofdiscourse,then,isweusuallysaysomethingandthenmoveontothenext
topic.Repeatingthesameideaoverandoveragainisgenerallybadforminlanguage,yetthisis
astapleofselfreportquestionnairedesign.Itisimportant,then,tounderstandthatacceptable
boundariesfornaturallanguagereliabilitycoefficientsarelowerthanthosecommonlyseen
elsewhereinpsychologicaltests.
TheLIWCAngerscale,forexample,ismadeupof230angerrelatedwordsandwordstems.In
theory,themorethatpeopleuseonetypeofangerwordinagiventext,themoretheyshoulduse
otherangerwordsinthesametext.Totestthisidea,wecandeterminethedegreetowhich
peopleuseeachofthe230angerwordsacrossaselectgroupoftextfilesandthencalculatethe
intercorrelationsoftheworduse.Indeed,inTable1,weincludetheseinternalreliability
statistics,includingthoseofAngerwherethealphareliabilitiesrangebetween.52(corrected)
and.07(uncorrected)dependingonhowitiscomputed.Inordertocalculatethesestatistics,each
dictionarywordwasmeasuredasapercentageoftotalwordspertext.Thesescoreswerethen
enteredasan“item”inastandardCronbach’salphacalculation,providingrawalphascoresfor
eachwordcategory,separatelyforeachcorpora.UncorrectedalphasinTable1areaveragesof
eachcorpora’salphascore.Importantly,theuncorrectedmethodtendstogrosslyunderestimate
reliabilityinlanguagecategoriesduethehighlyvariablebaseratesofwordusagewithinany
givencategory.CorrectedalphaswerecomputedusingtheSpearmanBrownpredictionformula
(Brown,1910;Spearman,1910),andaregenerallyamoreaccurateapproximationofeach
category’s“true”internalconsistency.
Issuesofvalidityarealsoabittricky.Wecanhavepeoplecompleteaquestionnairethatassesses
theirgeneralmoodsandthenhavethemwriteanessaywhichwethensubjecttotheLIWC
program.Wecanalsohavejudgesevaluatetheessayforitsemotionalcontent.Inotherwords,
wecangetselfreported,judged,andLIWCnumbersthatallreflectaparticipant’sanger.
OneofthefirsttestsofthevalidityoftheLIWCscaleswasundertakenbyPennebakerand
Francis(1996)aspartofanexperimentinwhichfirstyearcollegestudentswroteaboutthe
experienceofcomingtocollege.Duringthewritingphaseofthestudy,72Introductory
Psychologystudentsmetasagrouponthreeconsecutivedaystowriteontheirassignedtopics.
Participantsintheexperimentalcondition(n=35)wereinstructedtowriteabouttheirdeepest
thoughtsandfeelingsconcerningtheexperienceofcomingtocollege.Thoseinthecontrol
condition(n=37)wereaskedtodescribeanyparticularobjectoreventoftheirchoosinginan
unemotionalway.Afterthewritingphaseofthestudywascompleted,fourjudgesratedthe
participants’essaysonvariousemotional,cognitive,content,andcompositiondimensions
designedtocorrespondtoselectedLIWCDictionaryscales.UsingLIWCoutputandjudges’
ratings,PearsoncorrelationalanalyseswereperformedtotestLIWC’sexternalvalidity.The
findingssuggestedthatLIWCsuccessfullymeasurespositiveandnegativeemotions,anumber
ofcognitivestrategies,severaltypesofthematiccontent,andvariouslanguagecomposition
elements.Thelevelofagreementbetweenjudges’ratingsandLIWC’sobjectivewordcount
strategyprovidessupportforLIWC’sexternalvalidity.
SincethefirstversionofLIWC,hundredsofstudieshavefoundtheLIWCcategoriestobevalid
acrossdozensofpsychologicaldomains.Asastartingpointforexploringthisbodyofliterature,
werecommendaclosereadingofTausczikandPennebaker(2010).
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page9
BaseRatesofWordUsage
Inevaluatinganytextanalysisprogram,itishelpfultogetasenseofthedegreetowhich
languagevariesacrosssettings.Since1986,wehavebeencollectingtextsamplesfromavariety
ofstudies–bothfromourownlabaswellasfromdozensofothersintheUnitedStates,
England,Canada,NewZealand,andAustralia.Forpurposesofcomparison,textfromseveral
dozensofstudieshavebeenanalyzedusingtheupdatedLIWC2015dictionary.Ascanbeseenin
Table2,theseanalysesreflecttheutterancesofover80,000writersorspeakerstotalingover231
millionwords.Weprovideabriefdescriptionofeachdatasetbelow.
Table2.SummaryInformationforLIWC2015Statistics
Blogs
Novels
Natural
Speech
NYTimes
Twitter
Totalfiles
37,295
875
3,232
34,929
35,269
Totalauthors
37,295
441
2,174
Unknown
35,269
Totalwords
119,449,058
57,467,183
2,566,446
26,007,632
23,172,994
Note:Alltextsforallcorporarequiredaminimumof25wordsforinclusioninouranalyses.Alltextswithfewer
than25wordswereomittedforallstatisticsreportedinthisdocument.
Blogs
.ThisisanexpandedversionofthecorpusdescribedinSchler,Koppel,Argamon,and
Pennebaker(2006).Allblogpostsweremergedbyindividualpriortoanalysis,reflectingthe
entiretyofeachperson’sblog.
Expressivewriting
.Thisdatasetconsistsof29samplesfromexperimentswherepeoplewere
randomlyassignedtowriteeitheraboutdeeplyemotionaltopics(emotionalwriting)orabout
relativelytrivialtopicssuchasplansfortheday(controlwriting).Individualsfromallwalksof
life–rangingfromcollegestudentstopsychiatricprisonerstoelderlyandevenelementaryaged
individuals–arerepresentedinthesestudies.Onlytheemotionalwritingtopicswereincludedin
thecurrentanalyses.
Novels
.ThisisasampleofnovelsacquiredfromProjectGutenberg(http://www.gutenberg.org/)
thathadbeentaggedas“literature”.AllnovelswerewrittenintheEnglishlanguagebyauthors
wholivedbetweenapproximately1660and2008.ThenumberofauthorspresentedinTable2
reflectsonlyknownauthorsoftheworksanalyzedworksforwhichtheauthorwasunknown
werenotincludedinthisfigure,butincludedinanalyses.
Naturalspeech
.Thespeechsamplesincludeddiversetranscriptsfrommultiplecontexts,
includingpeoplewearingaudiorecordersoverdaysorweeks,strangersinteractinginawaiting
room,couplestalkingaboutproblems,andopenairtaperecordingsofpeopleinpublicspaces.
NewYorkTimes
.AcollectionofarticlespublishedonlineattheNewYorkTimeswebsite
(http://www.nytimes.com).ArticleswerecollectedfromtheNewYorkTimesinternetarchives
andincludevarioustypesofwork,includingeditorials,features,U.S.andworldnews,lettersto
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page10
theeditor,andsoon.AllarticleswerepublishedbetweenJanuaryandJulyof2014.Author
informationwasnotpreservedforthisdataset,sothetruenumberofauthorsisunknown.
Twitter
.IndividualTwitterposts(i.e.,“tweets”)werecollectedfromthepublicprofilesofusers
whosenameswereenteredintotheAnalyzeWordswebpage(http://analyzewords.com).Each
user’stweetswerecombinedintoasingleunitofobservationforanalysis.
AscanbeseeninTable3,theLIWC2015versioncaptures,onaverage,over86percentofthe
wordspeopleuseinwritingandspeech.Notethatexceptfortotalwordcountandwordsper
sentenceandthefoursummaryvariables(Analytic,Clout,Authentic,andTone),allmeansin
Table3areexpressedaspercentageoftotalwordsusedinanygivenlanguagesample.Simple
statisticaltestsindicatethatnearlyalllanguagecategoriesdiffersignificantlybetweencontexts.
Table3.LIWC2015OutputVariableInformation
Category
Blogs
Expressive
writing
Novels
Natural
Speech
NY
Times
Twitter
Grand
Means
Mean
SDs
LinguisticProcesses
Wordcount(mean)
3206.45
408.94
65716.49
794.17
744.62
660.24
11921.82
10274.32
Analytic
49.89
44.88
70.33
18.43
92.57
61.94
56.34
17.58
Clout
47.87
37.02
75.37
56.27
68.17
63.02
57.95
17.51
Authentic
60.93
76.01
21.56
61.32
24.84
50.39
49.17
20.92
Tone
54.50
38.60
37.06
79.29
43.61
72.24
54.22
23.27
Words/sentence
*
18.40
18.42
16.13

21.94
12.10
17.40
16.38
Words>6letters
14.38
13.62
16.30
10.42
23.58
15.31
15.60
3.76
Dictionarywords
85.79
91.93
84.52
91.60
74.62
82.60
85.18
5.36
Totalfunctionwords
53.10
58.27
54.51
56.86
42.39
46.08
51.87
5.13
Totalpronouns
16.20
18.03
15.15
20.92
7.41
13.62
15.22
3.61
Personalpronouns
10.66
12.74
10.35
13.37
3.56
9.02
9.95
3.02
1stperssingular
6.26
8.66
2.63
7.03
0.63
4.75
4.99
2.46
1stpersplural
0.91
0.81
0.61
0.87
0.38
0.74
0.72
0.83
2ndperson
1.32
0.68
1.39
4.04
0.34
2.41
1.70
1.35
3rdperssingular
1.50
2.01
4.80
0.77
1.53
0.64
1.88
1.53
3rdpersplural
0.68
0.57
0.92
0.65
0.68
0.47
0.66
0.60
Impersonalpronouns
5.53
5.28
4.79
7.53
3.84
4.60
5.26
1.62
Articles
6.00
5.70
8.35
4.34
9.08
5.58
6.51
1.79
Prepositions
12.60
14.27
14.27
10.29
14.27
11.88
12.93
2.11
Auxiliaryverbs
8.75
9.25
7.77
12.03
5.11
8.27
8.53
2.04
Adverbs
5.88
6.02
4.17
7.67
2.76
5.13
5.27
1.61
Conjunctions
6.43
7.46
6.28
6.21
4.85
4.19
5.90
1.57
Negations
1.81
1.69
1.68
2.42
0.62
1.74
1.66
0.86
OtherGrammar
Commonverbs
17.03
18.63
15.42
21.01
10.23
16.33
16.44
2.93
Commonadjectives
4.53
4.52
4.36
4.13
4.52
4.89
4.49
1.30
Comparisons
2.17
2.42
2.13
2.35
2.39
1.89
2.23
0.95
Interrogatives
1.51
1.49
1.53
2.44
1.26
1.43
1.61
0.76
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page11
Category
Blogs
Expressive
writing
Novels
Natural
Speech
NY
Times
Twitter
Grand
Means
Mean
SDs
Number
1.89
1.87
1.23
2.19
3.55
1.98
2.12
2.07
Quantifiers
2.27
2.35
1.80
1.93
1.94
1.85
2.02
0.83
Psychological
Processes
Affectiveprocesses
5.79
4.77
4.81
6.54
3.82
7.67
5.57
1.99
Positiveemotion
3.66
2.57
2.67
5.31
2.32
5.48
3.67
1.63
Negativeemotion
2.06
2.12
2.08
1.19
1.45
2.14
1.84
1.09
Anxiety
0.27
0.50
0.44
0.14
0.25
0.24
0.31
0.32
Anger
0.68
0.49
0.51
0.36
0.47
0.75
0.54
0.59
Sadness
0.44
0.50
0.55
0.23
0.29
0.43
0.41
0.40
Socialprocesses
b
8.95
8.69
12.26
10.42
7.62
10.47
9.74
3.38
Family
0.46
0.77
0.39
0.31
0.33
0.36
0.44
0.63
Friends
0.40
0.55
0.25
0.37
0.18
0.43
0.36
0.40
Femalereferences
0.91
1.37
1.88
0.55
0.62
0.54
0.98
1.26
Malereferences
1.31
1.47
4.09
0.80
1.38
0.84
1.65
1.34
Cognitiveprocesses
11.58
12.52
9.84
12.27
7.52
9.96
10.61
3.02
Insight
2.28
2.66
2.11
2.46
1.54
1.92
2.16
1.08
Causation
1.46
1.65
1.03
1.45
1.42
1.41
1.40
0.73
Discrepancy
1.56
1.74
1.48
1.45
0.89
1.54
1.44
0.80
Tentative
2.82
2.89
2.27
3.06
1.74
2.35
2.52
1.09
Certainty
1.56
1.51
1.45
1.38
0.76
1.43
1.35
0.70
Differentiation
3.31
3.40
2.82
3.73
2.03
2.62
2.99
1.18
Perceptualprocesses
2.58
2.38
3.74
2.11
2.42
2.96
2.70
1.20
See
1.04
0.80
1.58
0.78
0.88
1.39
1.08
0.78
Hear
0.75
0.48
1.26
0.63
1.06
0.82
0.83
0.62
Feel
0.64
0.92
0.76
0.61
0.35
0.56
0.64
0.52
Biologicalprocesses
2.16
2.59
2.17
1.23
1.44
2.60
2.03
1.39
Body
0.74
0.69
1.24
0.31
0.41
0.77
0.69
0.64
Health
0.61
0.93
0.48
0.38
0.57
0.54
0.59
0.65
Sexual
0.17
0.09
0.08
0.09
0.10
0.24
0.13
0.30
Ingestion
0.54
0.86
0.39
0.35
0.41
0.86
0.57
0.83
Drives
6.87
7.35
5.84
6.39
7.60
7.50
6.93
2.03
Affiliation
2.20
2.45
1.39
2.06
1.69
2.53
2.05
1.28
Achievement
1.27
1.37
0.91
0.99
1.82
1.45
1.30
0.82
Power
2.07
2.02
2.46
1.72
3.62
2.17
2.35
1.12
Reward
1.49
1.56
1.04
1.73
1.07
1.86
1.46
0.81
Risk
0.46
0.54
0.53
0.30
0.56
0.46
0.47
0.41
Timeorientations
Pastfocus
4.25
5.83
7.06
3.78
4.09
2.81
4.64
2.06
Presentfocus
10.95
10.45
6.21
15.28
5.14
11.74
9.96
2.80
Futurefocus
1.60
1.85
1.19
1.45
0.80
1.60
1.42
0.90
Relativity
14.23
16.19
14.56
12.12
14.47
13.99
14.26
3.18
Motion
2.15
2.58
2.34
2.20
1.70
1.94
2.15
1.03
Space
6.43
6.96
7.82
5.86
7.76
6.51
6.89
1.96
Time
5.86
7.01
4.71
4.28
5.17
5.75
5.46
1.81
PersonalConcerns
Work
2.04
2.64
1.20
2.87
4.49
2.16
2.56
1.81
Leisure
1.50
1.17
0.56
1.11
1.67
2.11
1.35
1.08
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page12
Category
Blogs
Expressive
writing
Novels
Natural
Speech
NY
Times
Twitter
Grand
Means
Mean
SDs
Home
0.49
0.99
0.56
0.34
0.47
0.43
0.55
0.63
Money
0.59
0.41
0.45
0.44
1.47
0.74
0.68
0.83
Religion
0.39
0.20
0.34
0.14
0.25
0.35
0.28
0.57
Death
0.15
0.12
0.26
0.04
0.22
0.19
0.16
0.29
InformalLanguage
2.09
0.45
0.53
7.10
0.29
4.68
2.52
1.65
Swearwords
0.35
0.09
0.05
0.25
0.02
0.49
0.21
0.37
Netspeak
0.92
0.05
0.10
1.35
0.16
3.23
0.97
1.17
Assent
0.33
0.10
0.14
3.29
0.05
1.82
0.95
0.72
Nonfluencies
0.42
0.17
0.24
1.96
0.07
0.39
0.54
0.49
Fillers
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.46
0.00
0.04
0.11
0.27
Punctuation
*
TotalPunctuation
24.18
12.41
23.68
19.02
27.46
21.35
9.01
Periods
10.29
6.17
6.04
5.88
9.07
7.49
3.76
Commas
4.15
3.17
7.09
6.60
2.76
4.75
1.94
Colons
0.43
0.21
0.12
0.27
2.15
0.64
0.85
Semicolons
0.10
0.04
0.53
0.17
0.67
0.30
0.53
Questionmarks
0.59
0.15
0.60
0.15
1.40
0.58
1.00
Exclamationmarks
1.16
0.12
0.49
0.02
3.21
1.00
1.35
Dashes
0.99
0.39
2.14
1.23
1.21
1.19
1.38
Quotationmarks
0.71
0.22
3.90
2.23
1.30
1.67
1.36
Apostrophes
3.85
1.40
2.19
1.56
3.32
2.46
4.94
Parentheses
0.90
0.32
0.06
0.54
0.81
0.53
0.87
Otherpunctuation
1.00
0.23
0.52
0.36
1.56
0.73
1.70
Notes:GrandMeansaretheunweightedmeansofthesixgenres;MeanSDsrefertotheunweightedmeanofthe
standarddeviationsacrossthesixgenrecategories.
*Incalculatinggrandmeansandstandarddeviationsforthewordspersentence(WPS)andpunctuationcategories,
thenaturalspeechcorpuswasexcludedduetodifferingtranscriptionrulesacrossdocuments.
Inmanyways,Table3pointstotheimportantrolethatcontextplaysinpeople’suseof
language.Notsurprisingly,thetopicsofwriting–asreflectedinthecurrentconcernscategory–
varysubstantiallyasafunctionofgenre.Morestriking,however,arethelargedifferencesin
people’suseoffunctionwordsaswellaspunctuationfromgenretogenre(cf.,Biber,1988).
ComparingLIWC2015withLIWC2007
ForusersofLIWC2007,aneweditionofLIWCthatusesadifferentdictionarycanbean
unsettlingexperience.Mostoftheolderdictionarieshavebeenslightlychanged,somehavebeen
substantiallyreworked(e.g.,socialwords,cognitiveprocesswords),andseveralothershave
beenremovedoradded.ToassistinthetransitiontothenewversionofLIWC,weincludeTable
4whichliststhemeans,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsbetweenthetwodictionary
versions.TheseanalysesarebasedonthecorporadetailedinTables2and3.Allnumbers
presentedinTable4aretheaverageresultsfromallsixcorpora.
TogetasenseofhowmuchadictionaryhaschangedfromtheLIWC2007totheLIWC2015
versions,lookattheLIWC2015/2007Correlationcolumn.Thelowerthecorrelation,themore
changeacrossthetwoversions.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page13
Table4.ComparisonsBetweenLIWC2015andLIWC2007:
Means,StandardDeviations,andCorrelations
LIWCDimension
OutputLabel
LIWC2015mean
LIWC2007mean
LIWC2015/2007
Correlation
1
Wordcount
WC
11,921.82
11,852.99
1.00
SummaryVariables
Analyticalthinking
Analytic
56.34
Clout
Clout
57.95
Authentic
Authentic
49.17
Emotionaltone
Tone
54.22
LanguageMetrics
Wordspersentence
*
WPS
17.40
25.07
0.74
Words>6letters
Sixltr
15.60
15.89
0.98
Dictionarywords
Dic
85.18
83.95
0.94
FunctionWords
function
51.87
54.29
0.95
Totalpronouns
pronoun
15.22
14.99
0.99
Personalpronouns
ppron
9.95
9.83
0.99
1stperssingular
i
4.99
4.97
1.00
1stpersplural
we
0.72
0.72
1.00
2ndperson
you
1.70
1.61
0.98
3rdperssingular
shehe
1.88
1.87
1.00
3rdpersplural
they
0.66
0.66
0.99
Impersonalpronouns
ipron
5.26
5.17
0.99
Articles
article
6.51
6.53
0.99
Prepositions
prep
12.93
12.59
0.96
Auxiliaryverbs
auxverb
8.53
8.82
0.96
Commonadverbs
adverb
5.27
4.83
0.97
Conjunctions
conj
5.90
5.87
0.99
Negations
negate
1.66
1.72
0.96
OtherGrammar
Regularverbs
verb
16.44
15.26
0.72
Adjectives
adj
4.49
Comparatives
compare
2.23
Interrogatives
interrog
1.61
Numbers
number
2.12
1.98
0.98
Quantifiers
quant
2.02
2.48
0.88
AffectWords
affect
5.57
5.63
0.96
Positiveemotion
posemo
3.67
3.75
0.96
Negativeemotion
negemo
1.84
1.83
0.96
Anxiety
anx
0.31
0.33
0.94
Anger
anger
0.54
0.6
0.97
Sadness
sad
0.41
0.39
0.92
SocialWords
social
9.74
9.36
0.96
Family
family
0.44
0.38
0.94
Friends
friend
0.36
0.23
0.78
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page14
LIWCDimension
OutputLabel
LIWC2015mean
LIWC2007mean
LIWC2015/2007
Correlation
1
Femalereferents
female
0.98
Malereferents
male
1.65
CognitiveProcesses
2
cogproc
10.61
14.99
0.84
Insight
insight
2.16
2.13
0.98
Cause
cause
1.40
1.41
0.97
Discrepancies
discrep
1.44
1.45
0.99
Tentativeness
tentat
2.52
2.42
0.98
Certainty
certain
1.35
1.27
0.92
Differentiation
3
differ
2.99
2.48
0.85
PerceptualProcesses
percept
2.70
2.36
0.92
Seeing
see
1.08
0.87
0.88
Hearing
hear
0.83
0.73
0.94
Feeling
feel
0.64
0.62
0.92
BiologicalProcesses
bio
2.03
1.88
0.94
Body
body
0.69
0.68
0.96
Health/illness
health
0.59
0.53
0.87
Sexuality
sexual
0.13
0.28
0.76
Ingesting
ingest
0.57
0.46
0.94
DrivesandNeeds
drives
6.93
Affiliation
affiliation
2.05
Achievement
achieve
1.30
1.56
0.93
Power
power
2.35
Rewardfocus
reward
1.46
Riskfocus
risk
0.47
TimeOrientations
4
Pastfocus
focuspast
4.64
4.14
0.97
Presentfocus
focuspresent
9.96
8.1
0.92
Futurefocus
focusfuture
1.42
1.00
0.63
Relativity
relativ
14.26
13.87
0.98
Motion
motion
2.15
2.06
0.93
Space
space
6.89
6.17
0.96
Time
time
5.46
5.79
0.94
PersonalConcerns
Work
work
2.56
2.27
0.97
Leisure
leisure
1.35
1.37
0.95
Home
home
0.55
0.56
0.99
Money
money
0.68
0.70
0.97
Religion
relig
0.28
0.32
0.96
Death
death
0.16
0.16
0.96
InformalSpeech
informal
2.52

Swearwords
swear
0.21
0.17
0.89
Netspeak
netspeak
0.97

Assent
assent
0.95
1.11
0.68
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page15
LIWCDimension
OutputLabel
LIWC2015mean
LIWC2007mean
LIWC2015/2007
Correlation
1
Nonfluencies
nonfl
0.54
0.30
0.84
Fillers
filler
0.11
0.40
0.29
AllPunctuation
*
Allpunc
21.35
21.65
0.98
Periods
Period
7.49
7.56
0.98
Commas
Comma
4.75
4.75
1.00
Colons
Colon
0.64
0.73
0.98
Semicolons
SemiC
0.3
0.29
0.97
Questionmarks
QMark
0.58
0.58
1.00
Exclamationmarks
Exclam
1.00
1.00
1.00
Dashes
Dash
1.19
1.21
0.98
Quotationmarks
Quote
1.67
1.64
0.93
Apostrophes
Apostro
2.46
2.52
0.94
Parentheses(pairs)
Parenth
0.53
0.63
0.90
Otherpunctuation
OtherP
0.73
0.72
0.95
*
Duetodifferencesinpunctuationrulesfortranscriptions,thenaturallanguagecorpuswasexcludedwhen
computingmeansandcorrelationsforpunctuationcategoriesaswellaswordspersentence.
1
Correlationistheaveragecorrelationbetweenthe2007and2015dictionariesacrosssixcorpora.Lowcorrelations
(<.80)aretobeexpectedduetothelargecategorydifferencesbetweenthetwoversions.
2
CognitiveprocessesisconceptuallysimilartothecognitivemechanismsLIWC2007category.Thenewercognitive
processdimensionrestrictsconstituentwordstotruemarkersofcognitiveactivity.
3
Differentiationisconceptuallysimilartothe2007exclusivecategory.
4
TimeOrientationcategoriesaresimilartothe2007categoriespast,present,andfuturebutaremoreunifiedto
reflectageneraltimeorientationinsteadofjustverbtenseusage.
LIWCDictionaryTranslations
TheLIWCdictionarieshavebeentranslatedintoseverallanguages,includingSpanish,German,
Dutch,Norwegian,Italian,Portuguese.Severalotherlanguagetranslationsareunderway,
includingArabic,Korean,Turkish,andChinese.Todate,thesetranslationshavereliedonthe
LIWC2001orLIWC2007dictionariesratherthanLIWC2015.
UnlikepreviousversionsofLIWC,thecurrentversionisbundledexclusivelywiththeoriginal
Englishdictionaryversions.LIWCdictionarytranslations,aswellasotherpublished
dictionaries,willbemadeavailableattheofficialLIWCdictionaryrepository
(http://dictionaries.liwc.net/).IfyouwouldliketobuildanonEnglishLIWC2015dictionaryor
ifyouhavebuiltoneindependentlywouldliketoaddittotherepository,contactthefirstauthor
atpennebaker@mail.utexas.edu.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page16
HelpfulReferences
Argamon,S.,Koppel,M.,Fine,J.,&Shimoni,A.R.(2003).Gender,genre,andwritingstylein
formalwrittentexts.Text
,23,32346.
Argamon,S.,Koppel,M.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Schler,J.(2009).Automaticallyprofilingthe
authorofananonymoustext.CommunicationsoftheAssociationforComputing
Machinery(CACM)
,52,119123.
Baayen,R.H.,Piepenbrock,R.,&Bulickers,L.(1995).TheCELEXLexicalDatabase(Release
I)[CDROM].Philadelphia:LinguisticDataConsortium,UniversityofPennsylvania.
Back,M.D.,Küfner,A.C.,&Egloff,B.(2011).“Automaticorthepeople?”Angeron
September11,2001,andlessonslearnedfortheanalysisoflargedigitaldatasets.
Psychologicalscience
,22
,837838.
Baddeley,J.L.,Daniel,G.R.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2015).HowHenryHellyer’suseof
languageforetoldhissuicide.Crisis,32
,288292.
Bazarova,N.N.,Taft,J.G.,Choi,Y.H.,&Cosley,D.(2012).Managingimpressionsand
relationshipsonFacebook:Selfpresentationalandrelationalconcernsrevealedthrough
theanalysisoflanguagestyle.JournalofLanguageandSocialPsychology,32
,
121141.
Biber,D.(1988).Variationacrossspeechandwriting.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Boroditsky,L.(2001).Doeslanguageshapethought?MandarinandEnglishspeakers’
conceptionoftime.CognitivePsychology,43,
122.
Bosson,J.K.,Swann,W.B.,Jr.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2000).Stalkingtheperfectmeasureof
implicitselfesteem:Theblindmenandtheelephantrevisited?JournalofPersonality
andSocialPsychology,79,
631643.
Boyd,R.L.(2015).MEH:MeaningExtractionHelper[Software].Availablefrom
http://meh.ryanb.cc
Boyd,R.L.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2015).DidShakespearewriteDoubleFalsehood
?Identifying
individualsbycreatingpsychologicalsignatureswithtextanalysis.Psychological
science
,26,
570582.
Brewer,M.B.,&Gardner,W.(1996).Whoisthis“We”?Levelsofcollectiveidentityandself
representations.JournalofPersonality&SocialPsychology,71,
8393.
Brown,R.(1968).Wordsandthings:Anintroductiontolanguage
.NY:FreePress.
Bruner,J.S.(1973).Beyondtheinformationgiven:Studiesinthepsychologyofknowing.
London:W.W.Norton.
Bucci,W.(1995).Thepowerofthenarrative:amultiplecodeaccount.InJ.W.Pennebaker
(Ed.),Emotion,Disclosure,andHealth
(pp.93122).
Washington,DC:American
PsychologicalAssociation.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page17
Buchanan,L.,Westbury,C.,&Burgess,C.(2001).Characterizingsemanticspace:
Neighborhoodeffectsinwordrecognition.PsychonomicBulletin&Review
,8
,
531544.
Carey,A.L.,Brucks,M.S.,Küfner,A.C.P.,Holtzman,N.S.,Deters,F.G.,Back,M.D.,
Donnellan,M.B.,etal.(2015).Narcissismandtheuserofpersonalpronounsrevisited.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,109
,115.
Campbell,R.S.&Pennebaker,J.W.(2003).Thesecretlifeofpronouns:Flexibilityinwriting
styleandphysicalhealth.Psychologicalscience,14
,6065.
Chambers,J.K.,Trudgill,P.,&SchillingEstes,N.,(2004).Thehandbookoflanguagevariation
andchange.
London:Blackwell.
Chung,C.K.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2013).Usingcomputerizedtextanalysistotracksocial
processes.InT.Holtgraves(Ed.),Handbookoflanguageandsocialpsychology
(pp.
21923).NewYork,NY:Oxford.
Chung,C.K.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2012).Linguisticinquiryandwordcount(LIWC):
Pronounced“Luke,”...andotherusefulfacts.InP.M.McCarthy&C.Boonthum
Denecke(Eds.),Appliednaturallanguageprocessing:Identification,investigationand
resolution
(pp.206229).Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.
Chung,C.K.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2005).Assessingqualityoflifethroughnaturallanguage
use:Implicationsofcomputerizedtextanalysis.InW.R.LenderkingandD.A.Revicki
(eds.),Advancinghealthoutcomesresearchmethodsandclinicalapplications
(pp.
7994).Washington,DC:DegnonAssociates.
Chung,C.K.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2007).Thepsychologicalfunctionsoffunctionwords.InK.
Fiedler(Ed.),Socialcommunication
(pp.343359).NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress.
Chung,C.K.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2008).Revealingdimensionsofthinkinginopenended
selfdescriptions:Anautomatedmeaningextractionmethodfornaturallanguage.
JournalofResearchinPersonality,42,
96132.
Cohn,M.A.,Mehl,M.R.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2004).Linguisticmarkersofpsychological
changesurroundingSeptember11,2001.Psychologicalscience,15,
68793.
Crammer,K.&Singer,Y.(2003).Ultraconservativeonlinealgorithmsformulticlassproblems.
JournalofMachineLearningResearch
,3
,951991.
Damasio,A.R.(1995).Descartes'error:Emotion,reasonandthehumanbrain.
NY:Harper
Collins.
Davison,K.P,&Pennebaker,J.W.,&Dickerson,S.S.(2000).Whotalks?Thesocial
psychologyofillnesssupportgroups.AmericanPsychologist
,55
,205217.
DeChoudhury,M.,Counts,S.,&Horvitz,E.(2013,April).Predictingpostpartumchangesin
emotionandbehaviorviasocialmedia.InProceedingsoftheSIGCHIConferenceon
HumanFactorsinComputingSystems
(pp.32673276).ACM.
Feixas,G.,Geldschlager,H.,&Neimeyer,R.A.(2002).Contentanalysisofpersonal
constructs.JournalofConstructivistPsychology,15,
119.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page18
Fiedler,K.,&Semin,G.R.(1992).Attributionandlanguageasasociocognitiveenvironment.
InG.R.Semin,andK.Fiedler(Eds.),Language,Interaction,andSocialCognition(
pp.
5878.)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications,Inc.
Fitzsimmons,G.M.,&Kay,A.C.(2004).Languageandinterpersonalcognition:Causaleffects
ofvariationsinpronounusageonperceptionsofcloseness.PersonalityandSocial
PsychologyBulletin,5,
547557.
Foltz,P.W.(1996).Latentsemanticanalysisfortextbasedresearch.BehaviorResearch
Methods,Instruments&Computers,28,
197202.
Francis,W.N.,&Kucera,H.(1982).FrequencyanalysesofEnglishusage:Lexiconand
grammar
.MA:HoughtonMifflin.
Gazzaniga,M.S.(2005).Theethicalbrain.
NY:DanaPress.
Genkin,A.,Lewis,D.D.,andMadigan,D.(2006).LargescaleBayesianlogisticregressionfor
textcategorization.Technometrics,49
,291304.
Gill,A.(2003).Personalityandlanguage.Theprojectionandperceptionofpersonalityin
computermediatedcommunication.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation.Universityof
Edinburgh,Scotland.
Gill,A.J.,Oberlander,J.,&Austin,E.(2006).Theperceptionofemailpersonalityat
zeroacquaintace.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,40,
497507.
Gortner,E.M.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2003).Theanatomyofadisaster:Mediacoverageand
communitywidehealtheffectsoftheTexasA&MBonfiretragedy.JournalofSocial
andClinicalPsychology,22,
580603.
Gottschalk,L.A.(1997).Theunobtrusivemeasurementofpsychologicalstatesandtraits.InC.
W.Roberts(Ed.)Textanalysisforthesocialsciences:Methodsfordrawingstatistical
inferencesfromtextsandtranscripts(
pp.117129).
Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum.
Gottschalk,L.A.,&Gleser,G.C.(1969).Themeasurementofpsychologicalstatesthroughthe
contentanalysisofverbalbehavior
.CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Graesser,A.C.,Gernsbacher,M.A.,&Goldman,S.R.(2003).IntroductiontotheHandbookof
DiscourseProcesses.InA.C.Graesser,M.A.Gernsbacher,andS.R.Goldman,
Handbookofdiscourseprocesses
(pp.123).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum
Associates.
Graesser,A.C.,Lu,S.,Jackson,G.T.,Mitchell,H.,Ventura,M.,Olney,A.,&Louwerse,M.
M.(2004).AutoTutor:Atutorwithdialogueinnaturallanguage.Behavioral
ResearchMethods,Instruments,andComputers,36,
180193.
Graesser,A.C.,McNamara,D.S.,Louwerse,M.M.,&Cai,Z.(2004).CohMetrix:Analysisof
textoncohesionandlanguage.BehaviorResearchMethods,Instruments&
Computers,36,
193202.
Graham,L.E.,Scherwitz,L.,&Brand,R.(1989).Selfreferenceandcoronaryheartdisease
incidencentheWesternCollaborativeGroupStudy.PsychosomaticMedicine,51,
137144.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page19
Graybeal,A.,Seagal,J.D.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2002).Theroleofstorymakingindisclosure
writing:Thepsychometricsofnarrative.PsychologyandHealth,17
,571581.
Groom,C.J.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2005).Thelanguageoflove:Sex,sexualorientation,and
languageuseinonlinepersonaladvertisements.SexRoles,52
,447461.
Groom,C.J.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2003).Words.JournalofResearchinPersonality,36
,
615621.
Hajek,C.,&Giles,H.(2003).Newdirectionsininterculturalcommunicationcompetence.InJ.
O.GreeneandB.R.Burleson(Eds.),Handbookofcommunicationandsocial
interactionskills(
pp.935957).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,
Publishers.
Halliday,M.A.K.,&Matthiessen,C.(2004).Anintroductiontofunctionalgrammar
(3rded.).
London:Arnold.
Hart,R.P.,Jarvis,S.E.,Jennings,W.P.,&SmithHowell,D.(2005).Politicalkeywords:Using
languagethatusesus
.NY:OxfordUniversityPress.
Hartley,J.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Fox,C.(2003).Usingnewtechnologytoassesstheacademic
writingstylesofmaleandfemalepairsandindividuals.JournalofTechnicalWriting
andCommunication,33
,243261.
Hartley,J.,SottoE.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2003).Speakingversustyping:Acasestudyofthe
effectsofusingvoicerecognitionsoftwareonacademiccorrespondence.British
JournalofEducationalTechnology,34
,516.
Hartley,J.,Sotto,E.andPennebaker,J.W.(2002).Styleandsubstanceinpsychology:Are
influentialarticlesmorereadablethanlessinfluentialones.SocialStudiesofScience,
32
,321334.
Heberlein,A.S.,Adolphs,R.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Tranel,D.(2003).Effectsofdamageto
righthemispherebrainstructuresonspontaneousemotionalandsocialjudgments.
PoliticalPsychology,24,
705726.
Holtgraves,T.(2011).Textmessaging,personality,andthesocialcontext.JournalofResearch
inPersonality
,45
,9299.
Holtzman,N.S.,Vazire,S.,&Mehl,M.R.(2010).Soundslikeanarcissist:Behavioral
manifestationsofnarcissismineverydaylife.JournalofResearchinPersonality
,44
,
478484.
Ireland,M.E.,&Henderson,M.D.(2014).Languagestylematching,engagement,andimpasse
innegotiations.Negotiationandconflictmanagementresearch
,7
,116.
Ireland,M.E.,Slatcher,R.B.,Eastwick,P.W.,Scissors,L.E.,Finkel,E.J.,&Pennebaker,J.
W.(2011).Languagestylematchingpredictsrelationshipinitiationandstability.
Psychologicalscience,22
,3944.
Kacewicz,E.,Pennebaker,J.W.,Davis,M.,Jeon,M.,&Graesser,A.C.(2013).Pronounuse
reflectsstandingsinsocialhierarchies.JournalofLanguageandSocialPsychology
,33,
125143.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page20
Kanagawa,C.,Cross,S.E.,&Markus,H.R.(2001)."WhoamI?"Theculturalpsychologyof
theconceptualself.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,27,
90103.
Kashima,E.S.,&Kashima,Y.(1998).Cultureandlanguage:Thecaseofculturaldimensions
andpersonalpronounuse.JournalofCrossCulturalPsychology,29,
461486.
Kashima,E.S.,&Kashima,Y.(2005).ErratumtoKashimaandKashima(1998)andreiteration.
JournalofCrossCulturalPsychology,36,
396400.
Koppel,M.,Schler,J.,&Zigdon,K.(2005,August).Determininganauthor'snativelanguageby
miningatextforerrors.InProceedingsoftheeleventhACMSIGKDDinternational
conferenceonKnowledgediscoveryindatamining
(pp.624628).ACM.
Koppel,M.,Schler,J.,Argamon,S.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2006).Effectsofageandgenderon
blogging.PresentedatAAAI2006SpringSymposiumonComputationalApproachesto
AnalysingWeblogs
,Stanford,CA,March2006.
Lee,ChangH.,Nam,K.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2004).Iswritingasmuchphonologicalas
speaking?Homophoneusageacrossspeakingandwriting.Psychologia:An
InternationalJournalofPsychologyintheOrient,47
,19.
Lepore,S.J.,&Smyth,J.M.(2002).Thewritingcure:Howexpressivewritingpromoteshealth
andemotionalwellbeing.
Washington:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Li,J.,Zheng,R.,&Chen,H.(2006).Fromfingerprinttowriteprint.Communicationsofthe
ACM
,49
,7682.
Liehr,P.,Mehl,M.R.,Summers,L.C.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2004).Connectingwithothersin
themidstofastressfulupheavalonSeptember11,2001.AppliedNursingResearch,17
,
29.
Liehr,P.,Takahashi,R.,Nishimura,C.,Frazier,L.,Kuwajima,I.&Pennebaker,J.W.(2002).
Embodiedlanguage:Comparisonofthecardiacandstrokehealthexperiencefor
Japaneseelders.JournalofNursingScholarship,34
,2732
Lyons,E.J.,Mehl,M.R.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2006).Linguisticselfpresentationinanorexia:
Differencesbetweenproanorexiaandrecoveringanorexiainternetlanguageuse.
JournalofPsychosomaticResearch,60,
253256.
Markus,H.R.,&Kitayama,S.(1991).Cultureandtheself:Implicationsforcognition,emotion,
andmotivation.PsychologicalReview,98,
224253.
McAdams,D.P.(2001).Thepsychologyoflifestories.ReviewofGeneralPsychology,5,
100122.
Mehl,M.R.,Pennebaker,J.W.(2003).Thesocialdynamicsofaculturalupheaval:Social
interactionssurroundingSeptember11,2001.PsychologicalScience,14,
57985.
Mehl,M.R.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2003).Thesoundsofsociallife:Apsychometricanalysisof
students’dailysocialenvironmentsandconversations.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychololgy,84
,857870.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page21
Mehl,M.R.,Robbins,M.L.,&Holleran,S.E.(2012).Howtakingawordforawordcanbe
problematic:Contextdependentlinguisticmarkersofextraversionandneuroticism.
JournalofMethodsandMeasurementintheSocialSciences
,3
,3050.
Miller,G.A.(1995).TheScienceofWords.
NY:ScientificAmericanLibrary.
Mitchell,T.(1999).MachineLearning
.NY:McGrawHill.
Newman,M.L.,Groom,C.J.,Handelman,L.D.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2008).Gender
differencesinlanguageuse:Ananalysisof14,000textsamples.DiscourseProcesses
,
45
,211236.
Newman,M.L.,Pennebaker,J.W.,Berry,D.S.,&Richards,J.M.(2003).Lying
words:Predictingdeceptionfromlinguisticstyle.PersonalityandSocialPsychology
Bulletin,29,
665675.
Niederhoffer,K.G.&Pennebaker,J.W.(2002).Linguisticstylematchinginsocialinteraction.
JournalofLanguageandSocialPsychology,21,
337360.
Nisbett,R.E.(2003).Thegeographyofthought:HowAsiansandWesternersthinkdifferently.
NY:FreePress.
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.
Peng,K.,&Nisbett,R.E.(1999).Culture,dialectics,andreasoningaboutcontradiction.
AmericanPsychologist,54,
741754.
Pennebaker,J.W.(1997).Writingaboutemotionalexperiencesasatherapeuticprocess.
PsychologicalScience,8
,162166.
Pennebaker,J.W.(2002).Whatourwordscansayaboutus:Towardsabroaderlanguage
psychology.PsychologicalScienceAgenda,15
,89.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Booth,R.J.,&Francis,M.E.(2007).LinguisticInquiryandWordCount
(LIWC):LIWC2007
.Austin,TX:LIWC.net.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Booth,R.J.,Boyd,R.L.,&Francis,M.E.(2015).LinguisticInquiryand
WordCount:LIWC2015
.Austin,TX:PennebakerConglomerates(www.LIWC.net).
Pennebaker,J.W.&Campbell,R.S.(2000).Theeffectsofwritingabouttraumaticexperience.
ClinicalQuarterly,9
,1721.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Chung,C.K.,Frazee,J.,Lavergne,G.M.,&Beaver,D.I.(2014).When
smallwordsforetellacademicsuccess:Thecaseofcollegeadmissionsessays.PloS
One
,9
,110.
Pennebaker,J.W.&Chung,C.K.(2005).Trackingthesocialdynamicsofresponsesto
terrorism:Language,behavior,andtheInternet.InS.WesselyandV.N.Krasnov
(Eds.),Psychologicalresponsestothenewterrorism:ANATORussiadialogue
(pp.
159170).Holland,Amsterdam:ISOPress.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page22
Pennebaker,J.W.&Graybeal,A.(2001).Patternsofnaturallanguageuse:Disclosure,
personality,andsocialintegration.CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience,10,
9093.
Pennebaker,J.W.&Lee,ChangH.(2002).Thepowerofwordsinsocial,clinical,and
personalitypsychology.TheKoreanJournalofThinkingandProblemSolving,12
,
3543.
Pennebaker,J.W.,&Francis,M.E.(1996).Cognitive,emotional,andlanguageprocessesin
disclosure.CognitionandEmotion,10
,601626.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Francis,M.E.,&Booth,R.J.(2001).LinguisticInquiryandWordCount
(LIWC):LIWC2001.
Mahwah:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Groom,C.J.,Loew,D.,&Dabbs,J.M.(2004).Testosteroneasasocial
inhibitor:Twocasestudiesoftheeffectoftestosteronetreatmentonlanguage.Journal
ofAbnormalPsychology,113
,172175.
Pennebaker,J.W.,&Ireland,M.(2008).Analyzingwordstounderstandliterature.InW.van
PeerandJ.Auracher(Eds.),Newbeginningsforthestudyofliterature
(pp.2448).
Cambridge,UK:CambridgeScholarsPublishing.
Pennebaker,J.W.,&Ireland,M.E.(2011).Usingliteraturetounderstandauthors:Thecasefor
computerizedtextanalysis.ScientificStudyofLiterature
,1
,3448.
Pennebaker,J.W.,&King,L.A.(1999).Linguisticstyles:Languageuseasanindividual
difference.JournalofPersonality&SocialPsychology,77,
12961312.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Mayne,T.,&Francis,M.E.(1997).Linguisticpredictorsofadaptive
bereavement.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,72
,863871.
Pennebaker,J.W.,Mehl,M.R.,&Niederhoffer,K.(2003).Psychologicalaspectsofnatural
languageuse:Ourwords,ourselves.AnnualReviewofPsychology,54,
547577.
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.AnalysisofSocialandPublicPolicy,5
,19.
Pennebaker,J.W.,&Stone,L.D.(2003).Wordsofwisdom:Languageuseoverthelifespan.
JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,85,
291301.
RamirezEsparza,N.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2006).Dogoodstoriesproducegoodhealth?
Exploringwords,language,andculture.NarrativeInquiry,16
,211219.
RamirezEsparza,N.,Pennebaker,J.W.,Garcia,F.A.,&Suria,R.(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99.
Robinson,R.L.,Navea,R.,&Ickes,W.(2013).Predictingfinalcourseperformancefrom
students’writtenselfintroductions:ALIWCanalysis.JournalofLanguageandSocial
Psychology
,32,469479.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page23
Rochon,E.,&Saffran,E.M.,Berndt,R.S.,&Schwartz,M.F.(2000).Quantitativeanalysisof
aphasicsentenceproduction:Furtherdevelopmentandnewdata.BrainandLanguage,
72,
193218.
Rosenberg,S.D.&Tucker,G.J.(1978).Verbalbehaviorandschizophrenia:Thesemantic
dimension.ArchivesofGeneralPsychiatry,36
,13311337.
Rude,S.S.,Gortner,E.M.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2004).Languageuseofdepressedand
depressionvulnerablecollegestudents.Cognition&Emotion,18,
11211133.
Sbarra,D.A.,Smith,H.L.,&Mehl,M.R.(2012).Whenleavingyourex,loveyourself
observationalratingsofselfcompassionpredictthecourseofemotionalrecovery
followingmaritalseparation.PsychologicalScience
,23
,261269.
Scherwitz,L.,Berton,K.,&Leventhal,H.(1978).TypeAbehavior,selfinvolvement,and
cardiovascularresponse.PsychosomaticMedicine,40,
593609.
Schiller,R.,Tellegen,A.,&Evens,J.(1995).Anidiogrpahicandnomotheticstudyof
personalitydescription.InJ.N.ButcherandC.D.Spielberger(Eds.),Advancesin
personalityassessment
(pp.123).Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc.
Schultheiss,O.C.,&Brunstein,J.C.(2001).Assessmentofimplicitmotiveswitharesearch
versionoftheTAT:Pictureprofiles,genderdifferences,andrelationstoother
personalitymeasures.JournalofPersonalityAssessment,77,Specialissue:Moredata
onthecurrentRorschachcontroversy,
7186.
Scott,M.(1996).WordSmith.
NY:OxfordUniversityPress.
Sebastiani,F.(2002).Machinelearninginautomatedtextcategorization.ACMComputing
Surveys
,34
,147.
Semin,G.R.,Rubini,M.,&Fiedler,K.(1995).Theanswerisinthequestion:Theeffectofverb
causalityonthelocusofexplanation.Personality&SocialPsychologyBulletin,21,
834841.
Skoyen,J.A.,Randall,A.K.,Mehl,M.R.,&Butler,E.A.(2014).“We”overeat,but“I”can
staythin:Pronounuseandbodyweightincoupleswhoeattoregulateemotion.Journal
ofSocialandClinicalPsychology
,33
,743766.
Slatcher,R.B.&Pennebaker,J.W.(2006).HowdoIlovethee?Letmecountthewords:The
socialeffectsofexpressivewriting.PsychologicalScience,17
,660664.
Slatcher,R.B.,Chung,C.K.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Stone,L.D.(2007).Winningwords:
IndividualdifferencesinlinguisticstyleamongU.S.presidentialandvicepresidential
candidates.JournalofResearchinPersonality,41
,6375.
Slobin,D.(1996).From“thought”and“language”to“thinking”for“speaking”.FromJ.J.
GumperzandS.J.Levinson(Eds.),Rethinkinglinguisticrelativity
(pp.7096).New
York,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stiles,W.B.(1992).Describingtalk:Ataxonomyofverbalresponsemodes
.California:Sage.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page24
Stirman,S.W.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2001).Worduseinthepoetryofsuicidalandnonsuicidal
poets.PsychosomaticMedicine,63,
517522.
Stone,L.D.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2002).Traumainrealtime:Talkingandavoidingonline
conversationsaboutthedeathofPrincessDiana.Basic&AppliedSocialPsychology,
24,
172182.
Stone,L.D.&Pennebaker,J.W.(2002).Traumainrealtime:Talkingandavoidingonline
conversationsaboutthedeathofPrincessDiana.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,
24
,172182.
Stone,P.J.,Dunphy,D.C.,&Smith,M.S.(1966).TheGeneralInquirer:AComputer
ApproachtoContentAnalysis.
Cambridge:MITPress.
Tannen,D.(1993).Framingindiscourse.
London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Tausczik,Y.R.,&Pennebaker,J.W.(2010).Thepsychologicalmeaningofwords:LIWCand
computerizedtextanalysismethods.Journaloflanguageandsocialpsychology
,29
,
2454.
Tausczik,Y.,Faasse,K.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Petrie,K.J.(2012).Publicanxietyand
informationseekingfollowingtheH1N1outbreak:blogs,newspaperarticles,and
Wikipediavisits.HealthCommunication
,27
,179185.
Toma,C.L.,&Hancock,J.T.(2010,February).Readingbetweenthelines:linguisticcuesto
deceptioninonlinedatingprofiles.InProceedingsofthe2010ACMconferenceon
Computersupportedcooperativework
(pp.58).ACM.
Tumasjan,A.,Sprenger,T.O.,Sandner,P.G.,&Welpe,I.M.(2010).Predictingelectionswith
twitter:What140charactersrevealaboutpoliticalsentiment.ICWSM
,10
,178185.
VanPetten,C.,&Kutas,M.(1991).Influencesofsemanticandsyntacticcontextonopenand
closedclasswords.Memory&Cognition,19,
95112.
VanSwol,L.M.,&Carlson,C.L.(2015).Languageuseandinfluenceamongminority,
majority,andhomogeneousgroupmembers.CommunicationResearch,43,118
.
Väyrynen,J.,&Honkela,T.(2005).Comparisonofindependentcomponentanalysisand
singularvaluedecompositioninwordcontextanalysis.ProceedingsofAKRR
,5
,
135140.
Watson,D.,Clark,L.A.,&Tellegen,A.(1988).Developmentandvalidationofbriefmeasures
ofpositiveandnegativeaffect:ThePANASscales.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,54
,10631070.
WeberFox,C.,&NevilleH.J.(2001).Sensitiveperiodsdifferentiateprocessingofopenand
closedclasswords:Aneventrelatedbrainpotentialstudyofbilinguals.Journalof
Speech,Language,andHearingResearch,44,
13381353.
Weintraub,W.(1989).Verbalbehaviorineverydaylife.
NY:Springer.
Williams-Baucom,K.J.,Atkins,D.C.,Sevier,M.,Eldridge,K.A.,&Christensen,A.(2010).
“You”and“I”needtotalkabout“us”:Linguisticpatternsinmaritalinteractions.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page25
PersonalRelationships
,17
,4156.
Winter,D.G.,&McClelland,D.C.(1978).Thematicanalysis:Anempiricallyderivedmeasure
oftheeffectsofliberalartseducation.JournalofEducationalPsychology,70,
816.
Wolf,M.,Horn,A.B.,Mehl,M.R.,Haug,S.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Kordy,H.(2008).
ComputergestütztequantitativeTextanalyse:ÄquivalenzundRobustheitderdeutschen
VersiondesLinguisticInquiryandWordCount.Diagnostica
,54
,8598.
Zijlstra,H.,VanMeerveld,T.,VanMiddendorp,H.,Pennebaker,J.W.,&Geenen,R.(2004).
DeNederlandseversievande‘linguisticinquiryandwordcount’(LIWC).Gedrag&
gezondheid
,32
,271281.
LIWC2015DevelopmentManual Page26
Acknowledgements
PortionsoftheresearchreportedinthismanualweremadepossiblebygrantsfromtheNational
InstitutesofHealth(MH52391),NationalScienceFoundation(IIS1344257),theArmyResearch
Institute(W5J9CQ12C0043),andtheTempletonFoundation.SpecialthanksgotoCindyChung.
Cindy’smasteryoflanguage,thoughtfulfeedback,andvaluableinsightshavebeenvitaltothe
ongoinglongevityoftheLIWCproject.Wearealsodeeplyindebtedtoanumberofpeoplewho
havehelpedwithdifferentphasesofLIWC,including:MarthaFrancis,LauraKing,YitaiSeah,
JennaBaddelley,MollyIreland,YlaTausczik,MatthiasMehl,RichardSlatcher,JasonFerrell,
SamGosling,andGabriellaHarari.WeareparticularlyindebtedtotheLIWC2015
DevelopmentTeamofKikiAdams,JenniferCaplan,ZacharyReese,CourtneyWang,andNick
Abbs.
... Afterward, it was rediscovered and used as a measurement tool to examine the purpose of persuasion by looking at the rhetorical choice of words in various texts and contexts [11]. As proposed by [12], there were three broad psycholinguistic domains expressed through the writers' choice of words. These elements were termed the Summary Variables of the Language Inquiry of Word Count (SV-LIWC) consisting of Analytical Thinking (AT), Clout (Cl), and Emotional Tone (ET) that could be used to measure the rhetorical frequencies, density, and richness of a writers' lexico-phrasal items. ...
... The finding led to the development of a powerful language-based measurement tool to examine the presence of emotional sentiment in a text. In the same vein, [12] developed a quantitative software application based on the LIWC2015 framework, which can generate the frequency percentages of various lexical items identified with three psycholinguistic domains. As discussed earlier, one of the domains is the Emotional Tone (ET). ...
... Furthermore, the second theoretical assumption was drawn on the linearity of theoretical claim made by [13] and [12] that any text written with overapplication of logical or emotional appeals should be able to correspondingly evoke the excessive logical and emotional persuasiveness in the minds of the target readers. Similarly, any text written with the underapplication of logical or emotional appeals should be able to correspondingly evoke the same inadequate logical and emotional persuasiveness in the minds of the target readers. ...
... The study interviews were conducted in German. To evaluate the recordings, the current software version of the LIWC2015 program according to Pennebaker et al. 51 was combined with a working version of the German LIWC2015 program by Meier et al. 28 . The analysis took place in 2017/2018. ...
... The recognized words can be assigned to several word categories-the so-called upper and lower categories-at the same time and consequently be recorded and counted several times. For example, the word "cried" can therefore be assigned to the categories sad (sadness), affect (all affect words as an upper category), negemo (negative emotion), verb (verbs), and focus past (past) 51 . ...
... The LIWC program has been continuously developed since its development by Pennebaker et al. 51 ; for the first time, the current version of the LIWC2015 software was used in this clinical picture. What distinguishes the LIWC program from other text analysis software is that it is also available and validated in the German language 28,52,61 . ...
Article
Full-text available
This explorative study of patients with chronic schizophrenia aimed to clarify whether group art therapy followed by a therapist-guided picture review could influence patients’ communication behaviour. Data on voice and speech characteristics were obtained via objective technological instruments, and these characteristics were selected as indicators of communication behaviour. Seven patients were recruited to participate in weekly group art therapy over a period of 6 months. Three days after each group meeting, they talked about their last picture during a standardized interview that was digitally recorded. The audio recordings were evaluated using validated computer-assisted procedures, the transcribed texts were evaluated using the German version of the LIWC2015 program, and the voice recordings were evaluated using the audio analysis software VocEmoApI. The dual methodological approach was intended to form an internal control of the study results. An exploratory factor analysis of the complete sets of output parameters was carried out with the expectation of obtaining typical speech and voice characteristics that map barriers to communication in patients with schizophrenia. The parameters of both methods were thus processed into five factors each, i.e., into a quantitative digitized classification of the texts and voices. The factor scores were subjected to a linear regression analysis to capture possible process-related changes. Most patients continued to participate in the study. This resulted in high-quality datasets for statistical analysis. To answer the study question, two results were summarized: First, text analysis factor called Presence proved to be a potential surrogate parameter for positive language development. Second, quantitative changes in vocal emotional factors were detected, demonstrating differentiated activation patterns of emotions. These results can be interpreted as an expression of a cathartic healing process. The methods presented in this study make a potentially significant contribution to quantitative research into the effectiveness and mode of action of art therapy.
... SentiStrength (Thelwall, Buckley & Paltoglou, 2012): a well-known sentiment analysis method that uses a lexical dictionary labeled by humans enhanced by machine learning. This method used an expanded version of the LIWC dictionary, adding new characteristics for the context of social media; Sentilex-PT (Carvalho & Silva, 2015): a sentiment lexicon specifically designed for the sentiment and opinion analysis about human entities in texts written in Portuguese, consisting of 7,014 lemmas and 82,347 inflected forms; Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) (Pennebaker et al., 2015): aims to analyze texts to detect emotional, social, cognitive words and standard linguistic dimensions of texts. Although LIWC has several metrics, we employed only those related to emotional polarities in this study; VADER (Hutto & Gilbert, 2014): a gold standard lexicon, and rule-based sentiment analysis tool claimed to perform exceptionally well in a social media context; OpLexicon (Souza et al., 2011): a sentiment lexicon for the Portuguese language built using multiple sources of information. ...
... Our study employed the following lexicons: VADER (Hutto & Gilbert, 2014), LIWC2015_PT (Pennebaker et al., 2015), SentiStrength (Thelwall, Buckley & Paltoglou, 2012), OpLexicon (Souza et al., 2011), and Sentilex-PT (Carvalho & Silva, 2015). We chose to use lexicons because our tweets dataset was not labeled. ...
Article
Full-text available
Although human factors (e.g., cognitive functions, behaviors and skills, human error models, etc.) are key elements to improve software development productivity and quality, the role of software developers' emotions and their personality traits in software engineering still needs to be studied. A major difficulty is in assessing developers' emotions, leading to the classic problem of having difficulties understanding what cannot be easily measured. Existing approaches to infer emotions, such as facial expressions, self-assessed surveys, and biometric sensors, imply considerable intrusiveness on developers and tend to be used only during normal working periods. This article proposes to assess the feasibility of using social media posts (e.g., developers' posts on Twitter) to accurately determine the polarity of emotions of software developers over extended periods in a non-intrusive manner, allowing the identification of potentially abnormal periods of negative or positive sentiments of developers that may affect software development productivity or software quality. Our results suggested that Twitter data can serve as a valid source for accurately inferring the polarity of emotions. We evaluated 31 combinations of unsupervised lexicon-based techniques using a dataset with 79,029 public posts from Twitter from sixteen software developers, achieving a macro F1-Score of 0.745 and 76.8% of accuracy with the ensemble comprised of SentiStrength, Sentilex-PT, and LIWC2015_PT lexicons. Among other results, we found a statistically significant difference in tweets' polarities posted during working and non-working periods for 31.25% of the participants, suggesting that emotional polarity monitoring outside working hours could also be relevant. We also assessed the Big Five personality traits of the developers and preliminarily used them to ponder the polarities inferences. In this context, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion were frequently related to neutral and positive posts, while Neuroticism is associated with negative posts. Our results show that the proposed approach is accurate enough to constitute a simple and non-intrusive alternative to existing methods. Tools using this approach can be applied in real software development environments to support software team workers in making decisions to improve the software development process.
... Computational text analysis approaches such as Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) [52] can provide non-reactive behavioural indicators of emotions and mood that sidestep a lot of the problems with self-reported mood measures. LIWC provides indicators of peoples' affective and cognitive processes based on what percentage of the words in their language falls into categories such as positive emotion, sadness, and anxiety. ...
... LIWC [52] was used to obtain text-analytic measures of peoples' emotions and mood. In this study, users' emotions-usually short-lived (seconds [62]), high in intensity and in response to the evaluation of a stimulus [63]-are operationalised via the LIWC scores of single posts. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Mental health (MH) peer online forums offer robust support where internet access is common, but healthcare is not, e.g., in countries with under-resourced MH support, rural areas, and during pandemics. Despite their widespread use, little is known about who posts in such forums, and in what mood states. The discussion platform Reddit is ideally suited to study this as it hosts forums (subreddits) for MH and non-MH topics. In bipolar disorder (BD), where extreme mood states are core defining features, mood influences are particularly relevant. Objectives This exploratory study investigated posting patterns of Reddit users with a self-reported BD diagnosis and the associations between posting and emotions, specifically: 1) What proportion of the identified users posts in MH versus non-MH subreddits? 2) What differences exist in the emotions that they express in MH or non-MH subreddit posts? 3) How does mood differ between those users who post in MH subreddits compared to those who only post in non-MH subreddits? Methods Reddit users were automatically identified via self-reported BD diagnosis statements and all their 2005–2019 posts were downloaded. First, the percentages of users who posted only in MH (non-MH) subreddits were calculated. Second, affective vocabulary use was compared in MH versus non-MH subreddits by measuring the frequency of words associated with positive emotions, anxiety, sadness, anger, and first-person singular pronouns via the LIWC text analysis tool. Third, a logistic regression distinguished users who did versus did not post in MH subreddits, using the same LIWC variables (measured from users’ non-MH subreddit posts) as predictors, controlling for age, gender, active days, and mean posts/day. Results 1) Two thirds of the identified 19,685 users with a self-reported BD diagnosis posted in both MH and non-MH subreddits. 2) Users who posted in both MH and non-MH subreddits exhibited less positive emotion but more anxiety and sadness and used more first-person singular pronouns in their MH subreddit posts. 3) Feminine gender, higher positive emotion, anxiety, and sadness were significantly associated with posting in MH subreddits. Conclusions Many Reddit users who disclose a BD diagnosis use a single account to discuss MH and other concerns. Future work should determine whether users exhibit more anxiety and sadness in their MH subreddit posts because they more readily post in MH subreddits when experiencing lower mood or because they feel more able to express negative emotions in these spaces. MH forums may reflect the views of people who experience more extreme mood (outside of MH subreddits) compared to people who do not post in MH subreddits. These findings can be useful for MH professionals to discuss online forums with their clients. For example, they may caution them that forums may underrepresent people living well with BD.
... January 6 Capitol Riot showed that it is not a temporal problem caused by individuals but a larger problem with a mobilized, organized public body (Munn, 2021). 4. See https://help.crowdtangle.com/en/articles/4201940-about-us. 5. LIWC provides a more standardized and broader list of languages on emotions, social concerns, or cognitive processes (Pennebaker et al., 2015). 6. Appendix A can be found at https://osf.io/m7ghc/. ...
Article
Given that political groups are dispersed across platforms, resulting in different discourses, there is a need for more studies comparing communication across platforms. In this study, we compared posts about #StopTheSteal from three social media platforms after the 2020 US Presidential election and preceding the January 6 Capitol Riot. To do so, we utilized Snow and Benford’s typology of social movement frames—diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames—in the context of far-right movements and an additional frame device: violence cues. This study focused on the following three social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter, and Parler. We built three corpora of social media data: 26,093 Facebook posts, 248,643 tweets, and 400,600 Parler posts. Using Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) classifiers, dictionary methods, and qualitative text analysis, we find that the use of these frames varies by platform, with users on the alt-tech platform Parler using violence cues such as “smash” and “combat,” suggesting a greater call to action relative to the mainstream platforms.
Chapter
This chapter examines the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay in terms of sentence length, clusters, and type/token ratios and uses the software program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC).
Article
Background: In the evaluation of research proposals, reviewers are often required to provide their opinions using various forms of quantitative and qualitative criteria. In 2020, the European Commission removed, for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITN) funding scheme, the numerical scores from the individual evaluations but retained them in the consensus report. This study aimed to assess whether there were any differences in reviewer comments’ linguistic characteristics after the numerical scoring was removed, compared to comments from 2019 when numerical scoring was still present. Methods: This was an observational study and the data were collected for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) Innovative Training Networks (ITN) evaluation reports from the calls of 2019 and 2020, for both individual and consensus comments and numerical scores about the quality of the proposal on three evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact and Implementation. All comments were analyzed using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program. Results: For both years, the comments for proposal's strengths were written in a style that reflects objectivity, clout, and positive affect, while in weaknesses cold and objective style dominated, and that pattern remained stable across proposal status and research domains. Linguistic variables explained a very small proportion of the variance of the differences between 2019 and 2020 (McFadden R ² =0.03). Conclusions: Removing the numerical scores was not associated with the differences in linguistic characteristics of the reviewer comments. Future studies should adopt a qualitative approach to assess whether there are conceptual changes in the content of the comments.
Article
Full-text available
Reflecting on teaching situations is important for student teachers' pro-fessionalization and can be understood as a learning opportunity. However, despite being important for their professional development, only little is known about the interindividual psychological processes that occur when student teachers reflect on their teaching. The present study examines 146 student teachers' teaching-related self-efficacy beliefs at two timepoints (at the beginning and end of one semester) and their emotion word use in 239 written reflections on differently perceived teaching situations (135 mastery and 104 challenging) using Wald tests and path modelling. First, our results show that student teachers use more positive than negative emotion words in their written reflections. Second, examining relations between situation and emotions, we show that emotion word use differs significantly between teaching situations. Further, higher negative emotion word use in reflections on mastery Data Availability Data can be requested from the corresponding author. A. Henke et al. experiences (positive teaching situations) is associated with lower self-efficacy at the end of one semester. Thus, it is important to focus particularly on the challenges that student teachers experience during teaching when aiming to promote their self-efficacy beliefs.
Article
Full-text available
Previous psycholinguistic findings showed that linguistic framing – such as the use of passive voice - influences the level of agency attributed to other people. To investigate whether passive voice use relates to people’s personal sense of agency, we conducted three studies in which we analyzed existing experimental and observational data. In Study 1 (N = 835) we show that sense of personal agency, operationalized between participants as recalling instances of having more or less power over others, affects the use of agentive language. In Study 2 (N = 2.7 M) we show that increased personal agency (operationalized as one’s social media followership) is associated with more agentive language. In Study 3 and its two replications (N = 43,140) we demonstrate using Reddit data that the language of individuals who post on the r/depression subreddit is less agentive. Together, these findings advance our understanding of the nuanced relationship between personal and linguistic agency.
Article
Full-text available
This study conceptually extends recent research on linguistic markers of psychological processes by demonstrating that psychological correlates of word use can vary with the context in which the words are used. The word use of 90 participants was analyzed across two theoretically defined communication contexts. Information about participants’ public language use was derived from recorded snippets of their daily conversations with others. Information about their private language use was derived from stream-of-consciousness essays. Personality trait–word use associations emerged as highly context dependent. Extraversion as a public trait was related to verbal productivity in public but not private language. Neuroticism as a private trait was related to the verbal expression of emotions in private but not public language. Verbal immediacy was indicative of Extraversion in public and Neuroticism in private language use. The findings illustrate the importance of considering communication contexts in research on psychological implications of natural language use. DOI:10.2458/azu_jmmss_v3i2_mehi
Article
Twitter is a microblogging website where users read and write millions of short messages on a variety of topics every day. This study uses the context of the German federal election to investigate whether Twitter is used as a forum for political deliberation and whether online messages on Twitter validly mirror offline political sentiment. Using LIWC text analysis software, we conducted a content-analysis of over 100,000 messages containing a reference to either a political party or a politician. Our results show that Twitter is indeed used extensively for political deliberation. We find that the mere number of messages mentioning a party reflects the election result. Moreover, joint mentions of two parties are in line with real world political ties and coalitions. An analysis of the tweets’ political sentiment demonstrates close correspondence to the parties' and politicians’ political positions indicating that the content of Twitter messages plausibly reflects the offline political landscape. We discuss the use of microblogging message content as a valid indicator of political sentiment and derive suggestions for further research.
Method
https://www.ryanboyd.io/software/meh/
Article
Recent interest in the implicit self-esteem construct has led to the creation and use of several new assessment tools whose psychometric properties have not been fully explored. In this article, the authors investigated the reliability and validity of seven implicit self-esteem measures. The different implicit measures did not correlate with each other, and they correlated only weakly with measures of explicit self-esteem. Only some of the implicit measures demonstrated good test–retest reliabilities, and overall, the implicit measures were limited in their ability to predict our criterion variables. Finally, there was some evidence that implicit self-esteem measures are sensitive to context. The implications of these findings for the future of implicit self-esteem research are discussed.