This article examines how verbal authenticity influences person perception. Our work combines human judgments and natural language processing to suggest verbal authenticity is a positive predictor of interpersonal interest (Study 1: 294 dyadic conversations), engagement with speeches (Study 2: 2,655 TED talks), entrepreneurial success (Study 3: 478 Shark Tank pitches), and social media engagements (Studies 4a–c; N = 387,039 Tweets). We find that communicating authenticity is associated with increased interest in and perceived connection to another person, more comments and views for TED talks, receiving a financial investment from investors, and more social media likes and retweets. Our work is among the first to evaluate how authenticity relates to person perception and manifests naturally using verbal data.
AmbadyN.KrabbenhoftM. A.HoganD. (2006). The 30-sec sale: Using thin-slice judgments to evaluate sales effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_2
2.
ArcherL. (2008). Younger academics’ constructions of “authenticity,”“success” and professional identity. In. Studies in higher education (Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 385–403). https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211729
3.
ArenasE. S. (2018). Exploring pornography in Widad Benmoussa’s poetry using LIWC and corpus tools. Sexuality and Culture, 22(4), 1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9513-7
4.
ÁrnasonV. (1994). Towards authentic conversations. Authenticity in the patient-professional relationship. Theoretical Medicine, 15(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01313339
5.
BiberD.ConnorU.UptonT. A. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins.
6.
BoumaG. (2009). Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. In C. Chiarcos, R. Eckart de Castilho & M. Stede Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference (pp. 31–40).
7.
BoydR. L.BlackburnK. G.PennebakerJ. W. (2020). The narrative arc: Revealing core narrative structures through text analysis. Science Advances, 6(32), eaba2196. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2196
8.
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
CarrèreS.GottmanJ. M. (1999). Predicting divorce among newlyweds from the first three minutes of a marital conflict discussion. Family Process, 38(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1999.00293.x
11.
CialdiniR. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. Harper Business.
12.
DalveanM. (2017). Changes in the style and content of Australian election campaign speeches from 1901 to 2016: A computational linguistic analysis. ICAME Journal, 41(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2017-0001
13.
FiskeS. T. (2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825
GecasV. (1991). The self-concept as a basis for a theory of motivation. In HowardJ. A.CalleroP. L. (Eds.), The self-society dynamic: Cognition, emotion, and action (pp. 171–187). Cambridge University Press.
16.
GinoF.KouchakiM.GalinskyA. D. (2015). The moral virtue of authenticity: How inauthenticity produces feelings of immorality and impurity. Psychological Science, 26(7), 983–996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615575277
17.
GrandeyA. A.FiskG. M.MattilaA. S.JansenK. J.SidemanL. A. (2005). Is “service with a smile” enough? Authenticity of positive displays during service encounters. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 96(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.002
18.
IrelandM. E.SlatcherR. B.EastwickP. W.ScissorsL. E.FinkelE. J.PennebakerJ. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610392928
19.
JordanK. N.PennebakerJ. W.EhrigC. (2018). The 2016 U.S. presidential candidates and how people tweeted about them. SAGE Open, 8(3), 215824401879121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018791218
20.
KernisM. H.GoldmanB. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 283–357). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
KiferY.HellerD.PerunovicW. Q. E.GalinskyA. D. (2013). The good life of the powerful: The experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychological Science, 24(3), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612450891
23.
KrumhuberE.MansteadA. S. R.KappasA. (2007). Temporal aspects of facial displays in person and expression perception: The effects of smile dynamics, head-tilt, and gender. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-006-0019-x
MarkowitzD. M.GriffinD. J. (2020). When context matters: How false, truthful, and genre-related communication styles are revealed in language. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(3), 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1652751
27.
MarkowitzD. M.ShulmanH. C. (2021). The predictive utility of word familiarity for online engagements and funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(18), Article e2026045118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026045118
28.
McNeishD. M. (2015). Using lasso for predictor selection and to assuage overfitting: A method long overlooked in behavioral sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(5), 471–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1036965
29.
McShaneL.CunninghamP. (2012). To thine own self be true? Employees’ judgments of the authenticity of their organization’s corporate social responsibility program. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1064-x
30.
MeierT.BoydR. L.MehlM. R.MilekA.PennebakerJ. W.MartinM.WolfM.HornA. B. (2020a). (Not) lost in translation: Psychological adaptation occurs during speech translation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619899258
31.
MeierT.BoydR. L.MehlM. R.MilekA.PennebakerJ. W.MartinM.WolfM.HornA. B. (2020b). Stereotyping in the digital age: Male language is “ingenious,” female language is “beautiful”–and popular. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0243637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243637
32.
MontgomeryM. (2017). Post-truth politics? Authenticity, populism and the electoral discourses of Donald Trump. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 619–639. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17023.mon
33.
MoulardJ. G.GarrityC. P.RiceD. H. (2015). What makes a human brand authentic? Identifying the antecedents of celebrity authenticity. Psychology & Marketing, 32(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20771
34.
NaimI.TanveerM. I.GildeaD.HoqueM. E. (2018). Automated analysis and prediction of job interview performance. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 9(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2016.2614299
35.
PennebakerJ. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns: What our words say about us. Bloomsbury Press.
36.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.BoydR. L.FrancisM. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Pennebaker Conglomerates.
37.
PortalS.AbrattR.BendixenM. (2019). The role of brand authenticity in developing brand trust. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 27(8), 714–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2018.1466828
38.
SchroederJ.EpleyN. (2015). The sound of intellect: Speech reveals a thoughtful mind, increasing a job candidate’s appeal. Psychological Science, 26(6), 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615572906
39.
SchwartzH. A.EichstaedtJ. C.KernM. L.DziurzynskiL.RamonesS. M.AgrawalM.ShahA.KosinskiM.StillwellD.SeligmanM. E. P.UngarL. H. (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLOS ONE, 8(9), Article e73791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073791
40.
SellJ.FarrerasI. G. (2017). LIWC-ing at a century of introductory college textbooks: Have the sentiments changed?Procedia Computer Science, 118, 108–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.151
41.
SnyderM.TankeE. D.BerscheidE. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.9.656
42.
SundarS. S. (2007). Social psychology of interactivity in human-website interaction. In JoinsonA. N.McKennaK. Y. A.PostmesT.ReipesU.-D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of internet psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43.
TahmasbiN.RastegariE. (2018). A Socio-contextual approach in automated detection of cyberbullying. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2018.269
44.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin Books.
45.
TodorovA.PakrashiM.OosterhofN. N. (2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27(6), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.813
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.
