Prior work suggests when instrumental goals are salient, linguistic complexity associates with positive behavioral outcomes compared to linguistic simplicity. The current work tested this idea using descriptions from over 1,000 online realty advertisements to associate with housing prices. The evidence suggested linguistic complexity (e.g., fewer common words, more analytic writing, and less readable writing) indeed associated with higher housing prices. These data explicated the contingent-on-effort hypothesis: linguistic complexity is favored when people value effort in a particular setting.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 103(24), 9369–9372. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601071103
2.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
3.
BakkerB. N.JaidkaK.DörrT.FaschingN.LelkesY. (2021). Questionable and open research practices: Attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab031
4.
BenoitK.WatanabeK.WangH.LuaJ. W.,KuhaJ., & European Research Council. (2021). quanteda.textstats: Textual statistics for the quantitative analysis of textual data (0.95). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = quanteda.textstats.
5.
BoydR. L.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). Routledge.
6.
BoydR. L.SchwartzH. A. (2021). Natural language analysis and the psychology of verbal behavior: The past, present, and future states of the field. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967028
ChungC. K.PennebakerJ. 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(1), 96–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JRP.2007.04.006
9.
ConwayL. G.ZubrodA. (2022). Are U.S. presidents becoming less rhetorically complex? Evaluating the integrative complexity of Joe Biden and Donald Trump in historical context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 41(5), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221081126
10.
EichstaedtJ. C.SmithR. J.MerchantR. M.UngarL. H.CrutchleyP.Preoţiuc-PietroD.AschD. A.SchwartzH. A. (2018). Facebook language predicts depression in medical records. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 115(44), 11203–11208. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802331115
FoxmanM.MarkowitzD. M.DavisD. Z. (2021). Defining empathy: Interconnected discourses of virtual reality’s prosocial impact. New Media & Society, 23(8), 2167–2188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444821993120
13.
IrelandM. E.MehlM. (2014). Natural language use as a marker of personality. In HoltgravesT. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 201–218). Oxford University Press.
14.
JordanK. N.PennebakerJ. W.EhrigC. (2018). The 2016 U.S. presidential candidates and how people tweeted about them. SAGE Open, 8(3), 215824401879121–215824401879121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018791218
15.
JordanK. N.SterlingJ.PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L. (2019). Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 116(9), 3476–3481. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811987116
16.
KeatingD. M.TotzkayD. (2019). We do publish (conceptual) replications (sometimes): Publication trends in communication science, 2007–2016. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(3), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1632218
17.
KernM. L.EichstaedtJ. C.SchwartzH. A.DziurzynskiL.UngarL. H.StillwellD. J.KosinskiM.RamonesS. M.SeligmanM. E. P. (2014). The online social self: An open vocabulary approach to personality. Assessment, 21(2), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514104
18.
LabrooA. A.KimS. (2009). The “instrumentality” heuristic: Why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psychological Science, 20(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02264.x
19.
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(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2010.536844
20.
MarkowitzD. M. (2019). What words are worth: National Science Foundation grant abstracts indicate award funding. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(3), 264–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X18824859
21.
MarkowitzD. M. (2021). The meaning extraction method: An approach to evaluate content patterns from large-scale language data. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 13–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.588823
22.
MarkowitzD. M. (2022). Instrumental goal activation increases online petition support across languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000333
23.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2016). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(4), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15614605
24.
MarkowitzD. M.KouchakiM.HancockJ. T.GinoF. (2021a). The deception spiral: Corporate obfuscation leads to perceptions of immorality and cheating behavior. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(2), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20949594
25.
MarkowitzD. M.ShulmanH. C. (2021). The predictive utility of word familiarity for online engagements and funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 118(18), e2026045118–e2026045118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026045118
26.
MarkowitzD. M.SongH.TaylorS. H. (2021b). Tracing the adoption and effects of open science in communication research. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 739–763. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab030
27.
MeierT.BoydR. L.MehlM. R.MilekA.PennebakerJ. W.MartinM.WolfM.HornA. B. (2020). Stereotyping in the digital age: Male language is “ingenious”, female language is “beautiful” – and popular. PLoS One, 15(12), e0243637–e0243637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243637
28.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press.
31.
PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L.BoothR. J.AshokkumarA.FrancisM. E. (2022). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC-22. Pennebaker Conglomerates. https://www.liwc.app.
32.
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(12), e115844–e115844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115844
RudeS.GortnerE.-M.PennebakerJ. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion, 18(8), 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000030
35.
SchwarzN. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 289–308). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15
36.
SchwarzN. (2015). Metacognition. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.BorgidaE. & BarghJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 203–229). American Psychological Association.
37.
SchwarzN.MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.BorgidaE.BarghJ. A. (2015). Metacognition. In APA handbook of personality and social psychology, volume 1: Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 203–229). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-006
38.
SerajS.BlackburnK. G.PennebakerJ. W. (2021). Language left behind on social media exposes the emotional and cognitive costs of a romantic breakup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 118(7), e2017154118–e2017154118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2017154118
39.
ShulmanH. C.BullockO. M. (2020). Don’t dumb it down: The effects of jargon in COVID-19 crisis communication. PLoS One, 15(10), e0239524–e0239524. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239524
40.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
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.
