Can word patterns from grant abstracts predict National Science Foundation (NSF) funding? In an analysis of over 7.4 million words covering 19,569 proposals, this article presents evidence that the writing style of NSF grant abstracts corresponds to the amount of money received for the award. The data describe a clear relationship between word patterns and funding magnitude: Grant abstracts that are longer than the average abstract, contain fewer common words, and are written with more verbal certainty receive more money from the NSF (approximately $372 per one-word increase). While such language patterns correspond to award amount, they largely contradict the NSF’s call to communicate science in a plain manner, suggesting an inconsistency between the injunctive norms of the NSF and the descriptive norms of science writing. Broadly, the results support a tradition of research that uses big text data to evaluate social and psychological dynamics.
Alvarez-ConradJ.ZoellnerL. A.FoaE. B. (2001). Linguistic predictors of trauma pathology and physical health. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, S159-S170.
2.
AustinP. C.SteyerbergE. W. (2015). The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 627-636.
3.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
4.
BergerJ.PackardG. (2018). Are atypical things more popular?Psychological Science, 29, 1178-1184.
5.
BoydR.PennebakerJ. W. (2015). A way with words: Using language for psychological science in the modern era. In DimofteC.HaugtvedtC.YalchR. (Eds.), Consumer psychology in a social media world (pp. 222-236). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BurgoonJ. K.QinT. (2006). The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 76-96.
7.
ChungC.PennebakerJ. W. (2007). The psychological functions of function words. In FiedlerK. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343-359). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
8.
CialdiniR. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York, NY: Harper Business.
9.
CohnM. A.MehlM. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2004). Linguistic markers of psychological change surrounding September 11, 2001. Psychological Science, 15, 687-693.
10.
ConnorU.MauranenA. (1999). Linguistic analysis of grant proposals: European Union research grants. English for Specific Purposes, 18, 47-62.
11.
ConnorU.WagnerL. (1998). Language use in grant proposals by nonprofits: Spanish and English. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 1998, 59–74.
12.
FengH.ShiL. (2004). Genre analysis of research grant proposals. LSP and Professional Communication, 4, 8-32.
13.
FlanaginA. J. (2007). Commercial markets as communication markets: Uncertainty reduction through mediated information exchange in online auctions. New Media & Society, 9, 401-423.
14.
FleschR. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
15.
GaertigC.SimmonsJ. P. (2018). Do people inherently dislike uncertain advice?Psychological Science, 29, 504-520.
16.
GolderS. A.MacyM. W. (2011). Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science, 333, 1878-1881.
17.
HancockJ. T.CurryL. E.GoorhaS.WoodworthM. (2008). On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, 1-23.
18.
HatfieldE.CacioppoJ. T.RapsonR. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 96-99.
19.
HumeK. M.GiladiA. M.ChungK. C. (2015). Factors impacting successfully competing for research funding: An analysis of applications submitted to the Plastic Surgery Foundation. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 135, 429e-435e.
20.
IrelandM. E.SlatcherR. B.EastwickP. W.ScissorsL. E.FinkelE. J.PennebakerJ. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39-44.
21.
KacewiczE.PennebakerJ. W.DavisM.JeonM.GraesserA. C. (2014). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 125-143.
KramerA. D. I.GuilloryJ. E.HancockJ. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 8788-8790.
24.
LapinskiM. K.RimalR. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127-147.
25.
LarrimoreL.JiangL.LarrimoreJ.MarkowitzD. M.GorskiS. (2011). Peer to peer lending: The relationship between language features, trustworthiness, and persuasion success. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 19-37.
26.
LazerD.PentlandA.AdamicL.AralS.BarabásiA.-L.BrewerD.. . . Van AlstyneM. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323, 721-723.
27.
LevineT. R. (2018). Ecological validity and deception detection research design. Communication Methods and Measures, 12, 45-54.
28.
LiF. (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and earnings persistence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45, 221-247.
29.
MariniM. M.SingerB. (1988). Causality in the social sciences. Sociological Methodology, 18, 347-409.
30.
MarkowitzD. M. (2018). Academy Awards speeches reflect social status, cinematic roles, and winning expectations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37, 376-387.
31.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2016). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 435-445.
32.
MitraT.WrightG. P.GilbertE. (2017). A parsimonious language model of social media credibility across disparate events. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing—CSCW ‘17 (pp. 126-145). Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://comp.social.gatech.edu/papers/cscw17-cred-mitra.pdf
33.
MudambiS. M.SchuffD. (2010). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34, 185-200.
34.
MurphyS. C. (2017). A hands-on guide to conducting psychological research on Twitter. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 396-412.
NormanD. A. (2010). Living with complexity. Cambridge: MIT Press.
37.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 139-156.
38.
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. London, England: Bloomsbury Press.
39.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.BoydR. L.FrancisM. E. (2015). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates.
40.
PennebakerJ. W.ChungC. K.FrazeeJ.LavergneG. M.BeaverD. I. (2014). When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLOS One, 9, e115844.
41.
Plain Writing Act of 2010. 946, 146 Cong. Rec. 2861-2863 § Sec. 3. Definitions. (2010).
42.
PriceP. C.StoneE. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 3957.
43.
RobinsonM. D.BoydR. L.FettermanA. K. (2014). An emotional signature of political ideology: Evidence from two linguistic content-coding studies. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 98-102.
44.
RomeroD. M.SwaabR. I.UzziB.GalinskyA. D. (2015). Mimicry is presidential: Linguistic style matching in presidential debates and improved polling numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1311-1319.
45.
Stephens-DavidowitzS. (2017). Everybody lies: Big data, new data, and what the Internet can tell us about who we really are. New York, NY: Dey Street Books.
46.
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.
47.
TomaC. L.D’AngeloJ. D. (2015). Tell-tale words: Linguistic cues used to infer the expertise of online medical advice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34, 25-45.
48.
van den BesselaarP.SandströmU.SchiffbaenkerH. (2018). Studying grant decision-making: A linguistic analysis of review reports. Scientometrics, 117, 313-329.
