Academy Awards Speeches Reflect Social Status,Cinematic Roles,and Winning Expectations

Abstract

An analysis of Academy Awards acceptance speeches revealed that social status is indicated through pronouns. Speeches from high status movie directors contained fewer self-references than relatively low status actors. Directors also communicated analytically compared with actors, who told stories and communicated narratively. A post hoc analysis revealed that unexpected award winners communicated more positively than those who were expected to win. The analyses emphasize the importance of replications in the social sciences and extending social and psychological phenomena to new settings.

Keywords

social status language Academy Awards speeches replication automated text analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Applegate

J. L.

Delia

J. G.

(1980). Person-centered speech, psychological development, and the contexts of language usage. In Clair

R. S.

Giles

(Eds.), The social and psychological contexts of language usage (pp. 245-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Biber

Connor

Upton

T. A.

(2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Blader

S. L.

Shirako

Chen

Y.-R.

(2016). Looking out from the top: Differential effects of status and power on perspective taking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 723-737.

Chung

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2007). The psychological functions of function words. In Fiedler

(Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343-359). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Clark

H. H.

Fox Tree

J. E.

(2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73-111.

Fiske

S. T.

(2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In Fiske

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 941-982). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Gonzales

A. L.

Hancock

J. T.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). Language style matching as a predictor of social dynamics in small groups. Communication Research, 37, 3-19.

Hancock

J. T.

Beaver

D. I.

Chung

C. K.

Frazee

Pennebaker

J. W.

Graesser

Cai

(2010). Social language processing: A framework for analyzing the communication of terrorists and authoritarian regimes. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political Aggression, 2, 108-132.

IMDb. (2017). The Oscar boost. Retrieved from http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/bestpichist.htm?view=bymovie&p=.htm

10.

Ireland

Mehl

(2014). Natural language use as a marker of personality. In Holtgraves

T. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 201-218). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Kacewicz

Pennebaker

J. W.

Davis

Jeon

Graesser

A. C.

(2014). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 125-143.

12.

Lazer

Pentland

Adamic

Aral

Barabási

A.-L.

Brewer

. . . Van Alstyne

(2009). Computational social science. Science, 323, 721-723.

13.

Markowitz

D. M.

Hancock

J. T.

(2016). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 435-445.

14.

Munafò

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

Bishop

D. V. M.

Button

K. S.

Chambers

C. D.

Percie

Sert

. . . Ioannidis

J. P. A.

(2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature: Human Behavior, 1, 1-9.

15.

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.

16.

Newman

M. L.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Berry

D. S.

Richards

J. M.

(2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665-675.

17.

Pardoe

Simonton

D. K.

(2008). Applying discrete choice models to predict Academy Award winners. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 171, 375-394.

18.

Pasupathi

(2007). Telling and the remembered self: Linguistic differences in memories for previously disclosed and previously undisclosed events. Memory, 15, 258-270.

19.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. London, England: Bloomsbury Press.

20.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Booth

R. J.

Boyd

R. L.

Francis

M. E.

(2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates.

21.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Chung

C. K.

Frazee

Lavergne

G. M.

Beaver

D. I.

(2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS One, 9, e115844.

22.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Stone

L. D.

(2003). Words of wisdom: Language use over the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 291-301.

23.

Pritchard

(2011). The readers’ editor on . . . Actor or actress? Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2011/sep/25/readers-editor-actor-or-actress

24.

Rude

Gortner

E.-M.

Pennebaker

(2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18, 1121-1133.

25.

Sakai

E. Y.

Carpenter

B. D.

(2011). Linguistic features of power dynamics in triadic dementia diagnostic conversations. Patient Education and Counseling, 85, 295-298. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.09.020

26.

Simonsohn

(2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26, 559-569.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB