Social language network analysis

Abstract

In this note we introduce a new methodology that combines tools from social language processing and network analysis to identify socially situated relationships between individuals, even when these relationships are latent or unrecognized. We call this approach social language network analysis (SLNA). We describe the philosophical antecedents of SLNA, the mechanics of preprocessing, processing, and post-processing stages, and the results of applying this approach to a 15-month corporate discussion archive. These example results include an explicit mapping of both the perceived expertise hierarchy and the social support / friendship network within this group.

Physician Racial Bias and Word Use during Racially Discordant Medical Interactions

“…The present study, however, does extend and conceptually replicate these earlier findings on social dominance by showing that physicians with higher levels of implicit racial bias also tend to use personal pronouns that prior research (Dino et al, 2009; Hancock et al, 2010; Scholand et al, 2010) has found to be associated with assumed higher status in interpersonal interactions. We believe this conceptual replication is theoretically important and casts more light on what exactly physicians with higher levels of implicit racial bias are doing to make their patients see them as less patient-centered and trustworthy (Blair et al, 2013; Cooper et al, 2012; Haussmann et al, 2015; Penner et al, 2013).…”

“…Turning to social psychology research of linguistic patterns, extensive research has shown that social dominance and/or status is strongly associated with use of first-person pronouns. Specifically, higher status speakers tend to use more first-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, us, our) and less first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me, my; Dino, Reysen, & Branscombe, 2009; Hancock et al, 2010; Scholand, Tausczik, & Pennebaker, 2010). For example, a study of triads during flight simulations showed that as rank went up (i.e., second lieutenant, first lieutenant, and captain), the use of first-person plural pronouns also increased (Sexton & Helmreich, 2000).…”

“…Our first prediction is based on research suggesting that non-Black physicians with higher levels of implicit racial bias are more likely than other physicians to display social dominance during medical interactions with Black patients (Cooper et al, 2012; Hagiwara et al, 2013) and on research showing that social dominance is associated with greater use of first-person plural pronouns and fewer first-person singular pronouns (Dino et al, 2009; Hancock et al, 2010; Scholand et al, 2010). We predicted that physicians with higher levels of implicit racial bias would use first-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, our, us) more frequently and first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, my, me) less frequently than physicians with lower levels of implicit racial bias.…”

Language and Group Processes: An Integrative, Interdisciplinary Review

“…Marginal, low status members tend to use singular pronouns, such as "I," rather than collective pronouns, such as "we," because they lack standing in the group, gain esteem from their personal identity, and tend to have a self-focus (Brewer & Gardner, 1996;Jetten, Branscombe, Spears, & McKimmie, 2003;Kacewicz, Pennebaker, Davis, Jeon, & Graesser, 2014;Rink & Ellemers, 2011). This result has been found in emails and letters between high and low status group members Kacewicz et al, 2014), in online forum discussion groups (Dino, Reysen, & Branscombe, 2009;Reysen, Lloyd, Katzarska-Miller, Lemker, & Foss, 2010), in airplane crews (Krifka, Martens, & Schwarz, 2003;Sexton & Helmreich, 2000), in discussions among doctors, patients, and companions (Sakai & Carpenter, 2011), in long-term online collaboration (Scholand, Tausczik, & Pennebaker, 2010b), and in the conversations of ad hoc laboratory groups (Kacewicz et al, 2014). Low status group members may be more self-focused or may be trying to call attention to themselves to gain visibility from higher status members.…”

Practical Suggestions for Legal and Ethical Concerns With Social Environment Sampling Methods

“…Third, researchers can ask participants to provide anonymized e-mails when practical (e.g., Kacewicz, Pennebaker, Davis, Jeon, & Graesser, 2014). For larger scale analyses, automating the analysis of deidentified electronic communication (e.g., via word-count software or social language network analysis; e.g., Scholand, Tausczik, & Pennebaker, 2010) rather than using human coders is likely to pass most ethical standards.…”