People adjusting from couplehood to singlehood often engage in account creation in order to privately make sense of their relationship life and death, as well as publicly explain the changes to their social network. This study analyzes language style differences in retrospective private and public accounts of relationship breakups. We examined language use as it relates to the creation of accounts, breakup initiator status, and relationship dissolution adjustment. We found that (a) public and private breakup accounts contain different types and percentages of first-person and third-person pronouns, (b) pronoun use differs based on the breakup initiator, and (c) use of first-person singular and plural pronouns predicts post-breakup adjustment. Findings suggest that language style differences in private and public accounts from the same person may illustrate variations in how individuals adjust to stressful experiences.
AgnewC. R.Van LangeP. A. M.RusbultC. E.LangstonC. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representations of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 939-954.
2.
BoalsA.KleinK. (2005). Word use in emotional narratives about failed romantic relationships and subsequent mental health. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 252-268.
3.
BochnerA. P.EllisC.Tillman-HealyL. M. (2000). Relationships as stories: Accounts, storied lives, evocative narratives. In DindiaK.DuckS. (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 13-29). New York, NY: Wiley.
4.
CampbellR. S.PennebakerJ. W. (2003). The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in writing styles and physical health. Psychological Science, 14, 60-65.
5.
ChungC.PennebakerJ. W. (2007). The psychological function of function words. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343-359). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
6.
CohnM. A.MehlM. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychological changes surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 687-693.
7.
DoeringJ. (2010). Face, accounts, and schemes in the context of relationship breakups. Symbolic Interaction, 33, 71-95.
8.
DuckS. W. (2011). The language of relationships in a social order. In DuckS. W. (Ed.), Rethinking relationships (pp. 171-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
FitzsimmonsG. M.KayA. C. (2004). Language and interpersonal cognition: Causal effects of variations in pronoun usage on perceptions of closeness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 547-557.
10.
GonzalesA. L.HancockJ. T. (2008). Identity shift in computer-mediated environments. Media Psychology, 11, 167-185.
11.
HancockJ. T.CurryL. E.GoorhaS.WoodworthM. (2007). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23.
12.
HarveyJ. H.WeberT. L.OrbuchA. L. (1990). Interpersonal accounts: A social psychological perspective. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
13.
Koenig KellasJ.BeanD.CunninghamC.ChengK. Y. (2008). The ex-files: Trajectories, turning points, and adjustment in the development of post-dissolutional relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 23-50.
14.
LakeyB.AdamsK.NeelyL.RhodesG.LutzC. J.SielkyK. (2002). Perceived support and low emotional distress: The role of enacted support, dyad similarity and provider personality. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 28, 1546-1555.
15.
MasudaM. (2000). Accounting for post-dissolution relationships. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
16.
NewmanM. L.PennebakerJ. W.BerryD. S.RichardsJ. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.
17.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K.IrelandM.GonzalesA. L.BoothR. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Retrieved from http://www.liwc.net/
18.
PennebakerJ. W.LayT. (2002). Language use and personality during crisis: Analyses of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s press conferences. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 271-282.
19.
RudeS.GortnerE. M.PennebakerJ. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1121-1133.
20.
SillarsA.ShellenW.McIntoshA.PomegranateM. (1997). Relational characteristics of language: Elaboration and differentiation in marital conversations. Western Journal of Communication, 61, 403-422.
21.
SlatcherR. B.VazireS.PennebakerJ. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “We”? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15, 407-424.
22.
SlotterE. B.GardenerW. L.FinkelE. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147-160.
23.
SorensonK. A.RussellS. M.HarknessD. J.HarveyJ. H. (1993). Account-making, confiding, and coping with the ending of a close relationship. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 73-86.
24.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
25.
WeberA. L.HarveyJ. H. (Eds.). (1994). Perspectives on close relationships. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26.
WeberA. L.HarveyJ. H.StanleyM. A. (1987). The nature and motivations of accounts for failed relationships. In BurnettR.McGheeP.ClarkeD. D. (Eds.), Accounting for relationships: Explanation, representation, and knowledge (pp. 114-133). New York, NY: Methuen.
