In the present experiment, participants read about the presence of many versus few others in typical student-life situations. They subsequently wrote an essay about their perspectives on learning in groups. Using the program Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to analyze these essays signified that participants who read prompts that involved many (vs. few) other students used more first-person singular pronouns and fewer words related to others. We interpret this increase in self-focus as a consequence of induced social crowding.
BedardK.KuhnP. (2008). Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27, 253-265.
2.
BiesenJ. N.SchoolerD. E.SmithD. A. (2015). What a difference a pronoun makes: I/We versus you/me and worried couples’ perceptions of their interaction quality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0261927X15583114
3.
CummingG. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
CummingG. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7-29.
5.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
6.
GarciaS. M.WeaverK.MoskowitzG. B.DarleyJ. M. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843-853.
7.
HattieJ. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 387-425.
8.
HoganR. (1975). Theoretical egocentrism and the problem of compliance. American Psychologist, 30, 533-540.
9.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38,67-73.
10.
LevineR. V.MartinezT. S.BraseG.SorensonK. (1994). Helping in 36 U.S. cities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 69-82.
11.
MaengA.TannerR. J. (2013). Construing in a crowd: The effects of social crowding on mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1044-1048.
PennebakerJ. W.FrancisM. E.BoothR. J. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC [Computer software]. Austin, TX: liwc.net.
14.
PennebakerJ. W.KingL. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1296-1312.
15.
PennebakerJ. W.MehlM. R.NiederhofferK. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Reviews in Psychology, 54, 547-577.
16.
PiezonS. L.DonaldsonR. (2005). Online groups and social loafing: Understanding student-group interactions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 9, 6.
17.
RobinsonR. L.NaveaR.IckesW. (2013). Predicting final course performance from students’ written self-introductions: A LIWC analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32, 469-479.
18.
SimmonsR. A.GordonP. C.ChamblessD. L. (2005). Pronouns in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health?Psychological Science, 16, 932-936.
19.
StokolsD. (1972). On the distinction between density and crowding: Some implications for future research. Psychological Review, 79, 275-277.
20.
TamirD. I.MitchellJ. P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 8038-8043.
21.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
22.
WaldenT. A.NelsonP. A.SmithD. E. (1981). Crowding, privacy, and coping. Environment and Behavior, 13, 205-224.
23.
WatkinsE.TeasdaleJ. D. (2001). Rumination and overgeneral memory in depression: Effects of self-focus and analytic thinking. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 353-357.
24.
WesterlundJ. (2008). Class size and student evaluations in Sweden. EducationEconomics, 16, 19-28.
