词语选择影响社会判断:包含低频词汇的关系信息获得的评价较低。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Michael W Alban
{"title":"词语选择影响社会判断:包含低频词汇的关系信息获得的评价较低。","authors":"Michael W Alban","doi":"10.1177/00332941241287411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prior research found a <i>word complexity effect</i>: Authors who use complex words are less favorably received when writing academic essays, business letters, and other relatively formal communications. The present study tested if word choice affects evaluations of messages between friends (Experiments 1-2) and spoken messages (Experiment 2). Three widespread dimensions of social judgments were studied - namely, persuasiveness, competence, and sincerity. Participants read/heard messages that varied (between-participants) by ordinary versus low-frequency words (<i>sad</i> vs. <i>forlorn</i>). Messages containing low-frequency words (mostly) received lower evaluations. Most importantly, word choice effects in messages between friends were consistently found - for both written and spoken language. Feedback analysis (Experiment 2) revealed that the overuse of \"big vocabulary\" conflicts with conscious social beliefs regarding ways to communicate, showing that social judgments spring from a combination of conscious social beliefs and the relatively unconscious influence of fluency.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"332941241287411"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Word Choice Affects Social Judgments: Relational Messages Containing Low-Frequency Words Get Low Evaluations.\",\"authors\":\"Michael W Alban\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941241287411\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Prior research found a <i>word complexity effect</i>: Authors who use complex words are less favorably received when writing academic essays, business letters, and other relatively formal communications. The present study tested if word choice affects evaluations of messages between friends (Experiments 1-2) and spoken messages (Experiment 2). Three widespread dimensions of social judgments were studied - namely, persuasiveness, competence, and sincerity. Participants read/heard messages that varied (between-participants) by ordinary versus low-frequency words (<i>sad</i> vs. <i>forlorn</i>). Messages containing low-frequency words (mostly) received lower evaluations. Most importantly, word choice effects in messages between friends were consistently found - for both written and spoken language. Feedback analysis (Experiment 2) revealed that the overuse of \\\"big vocabulary\\\" conflicts with conscious social beliefs regarding ways to communicate, showing that social judgments spring from a combination of conscious social beliefs and the relatively unconscious influence of fluency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"332941241287411\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241287411\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941241287411","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前的研究发现了词语复杂性效应:在撰写学术论文、商业信函和其他相对正式的通信时,使用复杂词语的作者不太受欢迎。本研究测试了选词是否会影响对朋友间信息(实验 1-2)和口头信息(实验 2)的评价。我们研究了社交判断的三个广泛维度,即说服力、能力和诚意。参与者阅读/聆听的信息(参与者之间)因普通词与低频词(悲伤与惆怅)而异。包含低频词(大部分)的信息获得的评价较低。最重要的是,在朋友之间的信息中,无论是书面语还是口语,都一致发现了词语选择效应。反馈分析(实验 2)显示,过度使用 "大词汇量 "与有意识的社会信念在沟通方式上存在冲突,这表明社会判断来自于有意识的社会信念和相对无意识的流畅性影响的结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Word Choice Affects Social Judgments: Relational Messages Containing Low-Frequency Words Get Low Evaluations.

Prior research found a word complexity effect: Authors who use complex words are less favorably received when writing academic essays, business letters, and other relatively formal communications. The present study tested if word choice affects evaluations of messages between friends (Experiments 1-2) and spoken messages (Experiment 2). Three widespread dimensions of social judgments were studied - namely, persuasiveness, competence, and sincerity. Participants read/heard messages that varied (between-participants) by ordinary versus low-frequency words (sad vs. forlorn). Messages containing low-frequency words (mostly) received lower evaluations. Most importantly, word choice effects in messages between friends were consistently found - for both written and spoken language. Feedback analysis (Experiment 2) revealed that the overuse of "big vocabulary" conflicts with conscious social beliefs regarding ways to communicate, showing that social judgments spring from a combination of conscious social beliefs and the relatively unconscious influence of fluency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信