Agency, pertaining to planning and executing actions, is a core feature of the political landscape. Our study examines the temporal dynamics of agentic language in political online discourse during the 2020 U.S. Congressional Elections, spanning 180 days before and after Election Day, and before the Capitol Hill riots. We coded 495,252 messages posted by Democratic and Republican candidates on Twitter for agentic language, which was more prevalent in tweets of politicians who won elections. Temporal analyses revealed increased agency as critical political events approached, whether a planned democratic event (Election Day) or a sudden disruptive protest (Capitol riots). The study enhances our understanding of the role of agency expression in political social media communication. Politicians may strive to evoke agency among voters to encourage political engagement, and voters may be cautioned by our results about this subtle (possibly unaware) manipulative strategy.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 195–255). Elsevier.
AldayP. M.SchlesewskyM.Bornkessel-SchlesewskyI. (2014). Towards a computational model of actor-based language comprehension. Neuroinformatics, 12(1), 143–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12021-013-9198-x
BarnettA. G.van der PolsJ. C.DobsonA. J. (2005). Regression to the mean: What it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(1), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299
8.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
9.
BermanR.MelumadS.HumphreyC.MeyerR. (2019). A tale of two twitterspheres: Political microblogging during and after the 2016 primary and presidential debates. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(6), 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719861923
Bornkessel-SchlesewskyI.SchlesewskyM. (2009). The role of prominence information in the real-time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach: Prominence-driven sentence processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 19–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00099.x
12.
BornkesselI.SchlesewskyM. (2006). The extended argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. Psychological Review, 113(4), 787–821. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.787
13.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114(28), 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114.
14.
BullP. (2007). Political language and persuasive communication. In WeatherallA.WatsonB. M.GalloisC. (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology. Palgrave advances in linguistics (pp. 255–275). Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
BurnapP.GibsonR.SloanL.SouthernR.WilliamsM. (2016). 140 characters to victory?: Using Twitter to predict the UK 2015 general election. Electoral Studies, 41, 230–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.017
16.
CarliL. L.EaglyA. H. (2011). Gender and leadership. In BrymanA.CollinsonD. L.GrintK.JacksonB.Uhl-BienM. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of leadership (pp. 103–117). Sage Publications Ltd.
17.
ClementsonD. E.ZhaoW.ParkS. (2023). How intense language hurts a politician’s trustworthiness: Voter norms of a political debate via language expectancy theory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(4), 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231171688
18.
Cohen-ChenS.Van ZomerenM. (2018). Yes we can? Group efficacy beliefs predict collective action, but only when hope is high. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 77, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.03.016
19.
de HoopH.LamersM. (2006). Incremental distinguishability of subject and object. In KulikovL.MalchukovA.de SwartP. (Eds.), Studies in language companion series (pp. 269–287). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
20.
DixonR. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge University Press.
21.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M. (2003). Effects of communication goals and expectancies on language abstraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 682–696. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.682
DuboisD.RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2016). Dynamics of communicator and audience power: The persuasiveness of competence versus warmth. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw006
24.
DurantiA. (2005). Agency in language. In DurantiA. (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology ((1st ed, pp. 449–473). Wiley.
25.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2019). Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12501. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501
26.
FengB.MacGeorgeE. L. (2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37(4), 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368258
27.
FillmoreC. J. (1968). The case for case. In BachE.HarmsE. T. (Eds.), Universals of linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). Holt.
FoleyW. A. (1999). Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories. E. K. Brown & J. Miller (Eds.). Elsevier.
30.
FormanowiczM.BenedaM.WitkowskaM.NikadonJ.SuitnerC. (2024). Mobilize is a verb: The use of verbs and concrete language is associated with authors’ and readers’ perceptions of a text’s action orientation and persuasiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241238418
31.
FormanowiczM.PietraszkiewiczA.RoesselJ.SuitnerC.WitkowskaM.MaassA. (2021). “Make it Happen!”: Verbs as markers of agency increase message effectiveness. Social Psychology, 52(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000435
32.
FormanowiczM.RoesselJ.SuitnerC.MaassA. (2017). Verbs as linguistic markers of agency: The social side of grammar: Linguistic markers of agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(5), 566–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2231
FriestadM.WrightP. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. The Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1086/209380
35.
GardelleL.SorlinS. (2018). Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and the notion of Animacy Hierarchy. International Journal of Language and Culture, 5(2), 133–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00004.gar
GollwitzerP. M.OettingenG. (2012). Goal pursuit. In RyanR. M. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 208–231). Oxford University Press.
38.
GollwitzerP. M.SheeranP. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 38 (pp. 69–119). Elsevier.
39.
GruberJ. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations, Doctoral dissertation. MIT, Cambridge.
40.
HafriA.PapafragouA.TrueswellJ. C. (2013). Getting the gist of events: Recognition of two-participant actions from brief displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 880–905. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030045
41.
HafriA.TrueswellJ. C.StricklandB. (2018). Encoding of event roles from visual scenes is rapid, spontaneous, and interacts with higher-level visual processing. Cognition, 175, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.02.011
42.
HeckR.ThomasS. L. (2020). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques MLM and SEM approaches. Routledge.
JiangL.YinD.LiuD. (2019). Can joy buy you money? The impact of the strength, duration, and phases of an entrepreneur’s peak displayed joy on funding performance. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1848–1871. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1423
45.
KanazawaS. (2000). A new solution to the collective action problem: The paradox of voter turnout. American Sociological Review, 65(3), 433. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657465
46.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
47.
LászlóJ.CsertőI.FülöpÉFerenczhalmyR.HargitaiR.LendvaiP.PéleyB.PólyaT.SzalaiK.VinczeO.EhmannB. (2013). Narrative language as an expression of individual and group identity: The narrative categorical content analysis. SAGE Open, 3(2), 215824401349208. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013492084
48.
LüdeckeD. (2018). Ggeffects: Tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(26), 772. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00772
McKelveyK.DiGraziaJ.RojasF. (2014). Twitter publics: How online political communities signaled electoral outcomes in the 2010 US house election. Information, Communication & Society, 17(4), 436–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.892149
51.
MummendeyA.KesslerT.KlinkA.MielkeR. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.76.2.229
52.
MungerM. C.MungerK. M. (2015). Choosing in groups: Analytical politics revisited. Cambridge University Press.
53.
MuralikrishnanR.SchlesewskyM.Bornkessel-SchlesewskyI. (2015). Animacy-based predictions in language comprehension are robust: Contextual cues modulate but do not nullify them. Brain Research, 1608, 108–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.11.046
NikadonJ.SuitnerC.ErsegheT.DzankoL.FormanowiczM. (2025). BERTAgent: The development of a novel tool to quantify agency in textual data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001740
56.
OtjesS.StroebeK.PostmesT. (2020). When voting becomes protest: Mapping determinants of collective action onto voting behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 513–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619872482
57.
PietraszkiewiczA.FormanowiczM.Gustafsson SendénM.BoydR. L.SikströmS.SczesnyS. (2019). The big two dictionaries: Capturing agency and communion in natural language. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(5), 871–887. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2561
58.
PillaiR.WilliamsE. A.LoweK. B.JungD. I. (2003). Personality, transformational leadership, trust, and the 2000 U.S. presidential vote. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 161–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00008-0
59.
R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
60.
RhodesM.LeslieS.-J.YeeK. M.SaundersK. (2019). Subtle linguistic cues increase girls’ engagement in science. Psychological Science, 30(3), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618823670
61.
RocklageM. D.RuckerD. D.NordgrenL. F. (2018). Persuasion, emotion, and language: The intent to persuade transforms language via emotionality. Psychological Science, 29(5), 749–760. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744797
62.
RuckerD. D.GalinskyA. D. (2016). The agentic-communal model of power: Implications for consumer behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 10, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.010
63.
RyabchenkoN. A.KaterminaV. V.MalyshevaO. P. (2019). Political content management: New linguistic units and social practices. Church, Communication and Culture, 4(3), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2019.1664916
64.
SemetkoH. A.ScammellM.2012). The SAGE handbook of political communication. Sage Publ.
65.
SiewierskaA. (2004). Person. Cambridge University Press.
66.
SilversteinM. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In DixonR. M. W. (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies; Humanities Press.
67.
StrausJ. R.GlassmanM. E.ShoganC. J.SmelcerS. N. (2013). Communicating in 140 characters or less: Congressional adoption of Twitter in the 111th Congress. Political Science and Politics, 46(1), 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096512001242
68.
SuedfeldP.RankA. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.2.169
69.
TetlockP. E. (1981). Pre- to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.207
70.
TetlockP. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1565–1585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1565
71.
TorreC. d. l.2018). The Routledge handbook of global populism. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
72.
Van ZomerenM. (2013). Four core social–psychological motivations to undertake collective action: Four motivations for collective action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(6), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12031
73.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
74.
Van ZomerenM.SpearsR.LeachC. W. (2010). Exploring psychological mechanisms of collective action: Does relevance of group identity influence how people cope with collective disadvantage?British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(2), 353–372. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X231091
75.
ViglioccoG.VinsonD. P.DruksJ.BarberH.CappaS. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007
76.
WaisbordS. (2018). Why populism is troubling for democratic communication. Communication, Culture and Critique, 11(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcx005
77.
WangH.CanD.KazemzadehA.BarF.NarayananS. (2012). A system for real-time Twitter sentiment analysis of the 2012 US presidential election cycle. In ZhangM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations (pp. 115–120). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/P12-3020.
78.
WeingartenE.ChenQ.McAdamsM.YiJ.HeplerJ.AlbarracínD. (2016). From primed concepts to action: A meta-analysis of the behavioral effects of incidentally presented words. Psychological Bulletin, 142(5), 472–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000030
79.
WeisP. P.NikadonJ.HerbertC.FormanowiczM. (2022). The verb–self link: An implicit association test study. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29, 1946–1959. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02105-0
80.
WilsonV. A. D.ZuberbühlerK.BickelB. (2022). The evolutionary origins of syntax: Event cognition in nonhuman primates. Science Advances, 8(25), eabn8464. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abn8464
81.
YuX.ReddyD. S.BentulaL.HongL. (2020). Characteristics of information spreading across nations. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 309.https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.309
82.
ZhuX.KimY.ParkH. (2020). Do messages spread widely also diffuse fast? Examining the effects of message characteristics on information diffusion. Computers in Human Behavior, 103, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.006
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.
