The “I”s have it: Sex and Social Status Differences on Twitter

Crossmark: check for updates

Authors

  • Jennifer C. Beach Department of Psychology, Catawba College, Salisbury, NC 28144, USA
  • Sheila Brownlow Department of Psychology, Catawba College, Salisbury, NC 28144, USA
  • Melissa D. Greene Department of Psychology, Catawba College, Salisbury, NC 28144, USA
  • N. Clayton Silver Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 89154, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17140/SBRPOJ-1-104

Keywords:

Personal pronoun use, Twitter, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)

Abstract

We examined the use of “I” in Tweets posted by 50 famous people during a one-month window. The linguistic inquiry and word count (LIWC) was implemented to determine the percentage of 140-character Tweets that used the personal pronoun “I”. Our findings showed patterns typically seen in natural speech. Specifically, women used the self-referent focus “I” significantly more often than men did, and lower status (operationalized as the number of Twitter followers) people used “I” significantly more often than those with higher status. Men of low social status used significantly more “I” language than did women with lower social status, but women and men of higher social status used “I” equally. Our findings suggest that social status may alter sex-linked communication, with the use of an informal and friendly style that includes self-referencing by men of lower social status, perhaps in an effort to engage more people and enhance their own status through more self-referencing.

References

Pennebaker J. The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us. New York, NY, USA: Bloomsbury Press/ Bloomsbury Publishing; 2011.

Pennebaker JW, Chung CK, Ireland M, Gonzales A, Booth RJ. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. LIWC. Web site. http://www.liwc.net/LIWC2007LanguageMan-ual.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2016

TausczikY, Pennebaker J. The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. J Lang Soc Psy-chol. 2010; 29(1): 24-54. doi: 10.1177/0261927X09351676

Carey A, Brucks M, Mehl M, et al. Narcissism and the use of personal pronouns revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015; 109(3): e1-e15. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000029

Golbeck J. Negativity and anti-social attention seeking among narcissists on Twitter: A linguistic analysis. First Monday. 2016; 21(3): 7. doi: 10.5210/fm.v0i0.6017

DeWall C, Buffardi L, Bonser I, Campbell W. Narcissism and implicit attention seeking: Evidence from linguistic anal-yses of social networking and online presentation. Pers Indi-vid Dif. 2011; 51(1): 57-62. Web site. http://iscience.deusto. es/2011/03/28/dewall-c-n-buffardi-l-e-bonser-i-campbell-w-k-in-press-narcissism-and-implicit-attention-seeking-evidence-from-linguistic-analyses-of-social-networking-and-online-pre-sentation-per/. Accessed July 20, 2016

Hirsh J, Peterson J. Personality and language use in self-narratives. J Res Pers. 2009; 43(3): 524-527. Web site. http:// individual.utoronto.ca/jacobhirsh/publications/Hirsh_Peter-son_2009_JRP.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2016

Pennebaker J, King L. Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77(6): 1296- 1312. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1296

Golbeck J, Robles J, Edmondson M, Turner K. Predicting per-sonality from Twitter. 2011 IEEE international conference on privacy, security, risk, and trust, and IEEE International con-ference on social computing. 2011; 149-156. Web site. https:// www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Predicting-Personality-from-Twitter-Golbeck-Robles/8a6dca55d8fabd15bec20eb25a561417 2de164a7/pdf. Accessed July 20, 2016

Kacewicz E, Pennebaker J, Davis M, Jeon M, GraesserA. Pro-noun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. J Lang Soc Psy-chol. 2014; 33(2): 125-143. doi: 10.1177/0261927X13502654

Berry D, Pennebaker J, Mueller J, Hiller W. Linguistic bases of social perception. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1997; 23(5): 526- 537. doi: 10.1177/0146167297235008

Pennebaker J. How author’s forgettable words reveal their personality and social behavior. Information Design Journal. 2013; 20(3): 267-272. Web site. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ab-stract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawle r&jrnl=1876486X&AN=97429540&h=eV1PY1uMYKHfyGU sNf384IHC1oA%2fUw3sRtJRPb6CB2BXx3t7fOVuyQ6AFbh FdOXWvkJTSwJkGTQEmYSPEJdo0Q%3d%3d&crl=f&result Ns=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl= login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3 dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d1876486X%26AN% 3d97429540. Accessed July 20, 2016

Poole M. Social class, sex, and linguistic coding. Lang Speech. 1979; 22(1): 49-67. doi: 10.1177/002383097902200104

Newman ML, Groom CJ, Handelman LD, Pennebaker JW. Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes. 2008; 45(3): 211-236. doi: 10.1080/01638530802073712

Kern M, EichstaedtJ, Seligman M, et al. From ‘Sooo excit-ed!!!’ to ‘So proud’: Using language to study development. Dev Psychol. 2014; 50(1): 178-188. doi: 10.1037/a0035048

Pennebaker J, Stone L. Words of wisdom: Language use over the life span. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 85(2): 291-301. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.291

Pennebaker J, Chung C, Frazee J, Lavergne G, Beaver D. When small words foretell academic success: The case of col-lege admissions essays. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9(12). doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0115844

Schwartz HA, Eichstaedt JC, Kern ML, et al. Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open vo-cabulary approach. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(9). doi: 10.1371/journal. pone.0073791

Park G, Schwartz H, Seligman M, et al. Automatic personal-ity assessment through social media language. J Pers Soc Psy-chol. 2015; 108(6): 934-952. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000020

Reuters.Twitter incorporated company profile. 2016.Web site. http://in.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile? symbol=TWTR.N. Accessed July 20, 2016

Muruganandam C. Average number of Twitter followers. 2016. Web site. http://yourescapefrom9to5.com/average-num-ber-of-twitter-followers-is-208-infographic. Accessed July 20, 2016

Golder S, Macy M. Diurnal and season mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science. 2011; 333(6051): 1878-1881. doi: 10.1126/science.1202775

Downloads

Published

2016-08-17

How to Cite

Jennifer C. Beach, Sheila Brownlow, Melissa D. Greene, & N. Clayton Silver. (2016). The “I”s have it: Sex and Social Status Differences on Twitter. Social Behavior Research and Practice, 1(1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.17140/SBRPOJ-1-104

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 1 (2016): Volume 1 Issue 1 2016

Section

Articles

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

All content published in Social Behavior Research and Practice (SBRP) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license allows anyone to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work — including for commercial purposes — provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source.