Article

Social Psychological and

Personality Science
Frankly, We Do Give a Damn: The Relationship 2017, Vol. 8(7) 816-826
ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
Between Profanity and Honesty sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550616681055
journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

Gilad Feldman1, Huiwen Lian2, Michal Kosinski3, and David Stillwell4

Abstract
There are two conflicting perspectives regarding the relationship between profanity and dishonesty. These two forms of norm-
violating behavior share common causes and are often considered to be positively related. On the other hand, however, profanity
is often used to express one’s genuine feelings and could therefore be negatively related to dishonesty. In three studies, we
explored the relationship between profanity and honesty. We examined profanity and honesty first with profanity behavior and
lying on a scale in the lab (Study 1; N ¼ 276), then with a linguistic analysis of real-life social interactions on Facebook (Study 2;
N ¼ 73,789), and finally with profanity and integrity indexes for the aggregate level of U.S. states (Study 3; N ¼ 50 states). We
found a consistent positive relationship between profanity and honesty; profanity was associated with less lying and deception at
the individual level and with higher integrity at the society level.

Keywords
profanity, honesty, cursing, integrity

Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. includes sexual references, blasphemy, objects eliciting dis-
Gone with the Wind (1939) gust, ethnic–racial–gender slurs, vulgar terms, or offensive
slang (Mabry, 1974). The interest in understanding the psycho-
Profane as it is, this memorable line by the character Rhett Butler logical roots of the use of profanity dates back to as far as the
in the film Gone with the Wind profoundly conveys Butler’s hon- early 20th century (Patrick, 1901), yet the literature in this
est thoughts and feelings. However, it was the use of this profane domain is scattered across different scientific fields with only
word that led to a US$5,000 fine against the film’s production for recent attempts to connect the findings into a unified frame-
violating the Motion Picture Production Code. This example work (Jay, 2009).
reveals the conflicting attitudes that most societies hold toward The reasons for using profanity depend on the person and
profanity, reflected in a heated debate taking place in online for- the situation, yet profanity is commonly related to the expres-
ums and media in recent years—with passionate views on both sion of emotions such as anger, frustration, or surprise (Jay &
sides. For example, the website debate.org, which conducts Janschewitz, 2008). The spontaneous use of profanity is usually
online polls and elicits general public opinions on popular online the unfiltered genuine expression of emotions, with the most
debates, has many comments on the issue, with a 50–50 tie extreme type being the bursts of profanity (i.e., coprolalia)
between the two views (Are people who swear more honest?, accompanying the Tourette syndrome (Cavanna & Rickards,
2015). This public debate reflects an interesting question and mir- 2013). The more controllable use of profanity often helps to
rors the academic discussion regarding the nature of profanity. On convey world views or internal states or is used to insult an
the one hand, profane individuals are widely perceived as violat- object, a view, or a person (Jay, 2009). Speech involving
ing moral and social codes and thus deemed untrustworthy and
potentially antisocial and dishonest (Jay, 2009). On the other
hand, profane language is considered as more authentic and unfil- 1
Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University,
tered, thus making its users appear more honest and genuine (Jay, Maastricht, the Netherlands
2
2000). These opposing views on profanity raise the question of Department of Management, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology,
whether profane individuals tend to be more or less dishonest. Clearwater Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong
3
Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
4
Judge School of Business, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United
Kingdom
Profanity
Corresponding Author:
Profanity refers to obscene language including taboo and Gilad Feldman, Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht
swear words, which in regular social settings are considered University, Maastricht 6200MD, the Netherlands.
inappropriate and in some situations unacceptable. It often Email: gilad.feldman@maastrichtuniversity.nl
Feldman et al. 817

profane words has a stronger impact on people than regular expectations (Kaplan, 1975), low moral standards, lack of
speech and has been shown to be processed on a deeper level self-control, or negative emotions (Jay, 1992, 2000). In this
in people’s minds (Jay, Caldwell-Harris, & King, 2008). regard, profanity appears to be positively related to dishonesty,
The context is important for understanding profanity. explaining why people who swear are perceived as untrust-
Profanity can sometimes be interpreted as antisocial, harmful, worthy (Jay, 1992) and why swear words are often associated
and abusive—if, for example, intended to harm or convey with deceit (Rassin & Van Der Heijden, 2005). Previous work
aggression and hostile emotions (Stone, McMillan, & has also linked the use of swear words to the dark triad per-
Hazelton, 2015). It also violates the moral foundations of purity sonality traits—namely, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and
(Sylwester & Purver, 2015) and the common norm for speech, psychopathy—all indicative of social deviance and a higher
suggestive of the potential to engage in other antisocial beha- propensity for dishonesty (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010;
viors that violate norms and morality. However, profanity may Sumner, Byers, Boochever, & Park, 2012). Swearing has
also be seen as a positive if it does not inflict harm but acts as a also been shown to hold a negative relationship with the
reliever of stress or pain in a cathartic effect (Robbins et al., personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness,
2011; Vingerhoets, Bylsma, & de Vlam, 2013). Profane lan- which are considered the more socially aware and moral
guage can serve as a substitute for potentially more harmful aspects of personality (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh,
forms of violence (Jay, 2009) and can alert others to one’s own 2011; Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006; Walumbwa &
emotional state or the issues that one cares about deeply (Jay, Schaubroeck, 2009).
2009). Profanity is also used to entertain, attract (Kaye & On the other hand, profanity can be positively associated
Sapolsky, 2009), and influence audiences (Scherer & Sagarin, with honesty. It is often used to express one’s unfiltered feel-
2006) as illustrated by the frequent use of profane language in ings (e.g., anger, frustration) and sincerity. Innocent suspects,
comedy, mass media, and advertising (Sapolsky & Kaye, for example, are more likely to use swear words than guilty sus-
2005). Profanity has even been used by presidential candidates pects when denying accusations (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, &
in American elections (Slatcher, Chung, Pennebaker, & Stone, Jayne, 2011). Accordingly, people perceive testimonies
2007) as recently illustrated by Donald Trump, who has been containing swear words as more credible (Rassin & Van Der
both hailed for authenticity and criticized for moral bankruptcy Heijden, 2005).
(Sopan, 2015).
The Present Investigation
Dishonesty This work explores the relationship between profanity and
In its most basic form, dishonesty involves the conscious honesty to address the paradoxical perspectives in the exist-
attempt by a person to convince others of a false reality (Abe, ing literature. Study 1 examined the relationship between
2011). In this work, we operationalize dishonesty as a general- profanity use and honesty on a lie scale. Study 2 examined
ized personal inclination to obscure the truth in natural, every- behavior in real-life naturalistic setting by analyzing behavior
day life situations. The most common type of such dishonesty on Facebook: looking at the relationship between users’
is represented by ‘‘white lies’’ or ‘‘social lies’’ that people tell profanity rate and honesty in their online status updates, as
themselves or others in order to appear more desirable or pos- indicated by a linguistic detection of deception. Study 3
itive (DePaulo, Kashy, Kirkendol, Wyer, & Epstein, 1996; extended to society level by exploring the relationship
Granhag & Vrij, 2005). While most people claim to be honest between state-level profanity rates and state-level integrity.
most of the time (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Halevy, Shalvi, & The Online Supplemental Materials include power analyses,
Verschuere, 2013), research suggests that minor cases of dis- procedures, and stimuli used in the three studies, and data
honesty are quite common (DePaulo & Kashy, 1998; Hofmann, and code were made available on the Open Science Frame-
Wisneski, Brandt, & Skitka, 2014; Serota, Levine, & Boster, work (https://osf.io/z9jbm/).
2010), especially when people believe that dishonesty is harm-
less or justifiable (Fang & Casadevall, 2013) or that they can Study 1—Honesty on a Lie Scale
avoid any penalties (Gino, Ayal, & Ariely, 2009). In other
We began our investigation with a test for the relationship
words, people tend to rationalize their own dishonesty (Ayal
between profanity and honesty, captured by a widely used
& Gino, 2012) and perceive it as less severe (Peer, Acquisti,
lie scale.
& Shalvi, 2014) or nonexistent (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).

The Relationship Between Profanity and Dishonesty Method

There are two opposing perspectives on the relationship
Participants and Procedure
between profanity and dishonesty. As dishonesty and profanity A total of 307 participants were recruited online using Amazon
are both considered deviant (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) and Mechanical Turk. Of the sample, 31 participants failed atten-
immoral (Buchtel et al., 2015), they are generally perceived tion checks (10%) and were excluded from the analysis, leav-
as a reflection of a disregard for societal normative ing a sample of 276 (M age ¼ 40.71, SD age ¼ 12.75;
818 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(7)

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables.

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Honesty 7.63 3.00 (.79)

2. Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 .34*** (.84)
3. Profanity behavioral 1 4.09 2.61 .20** .46*** (—)
4. Profanity behavioral 2 1.60 1.62 .13* .41*** .45*** (—)
5. Age 40.71 12.75 .13* .34*** .05 .08 (—)
6. Gender 1.62 0.49 .06 .03 .07 .04 .08
Note. N ¼ 276. Gender coding: 1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female. Scale a coefficients are on the diagonal. Profanity behavioral 1 ¼ number of most frequently used curse words
written; profanity behavioral 2 ¼ number of most liked curse words written.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

171 females). The exclusion of participants had no significant Honesty. Honesty was measured using the Lie subscale of the
impact on the reported effect sizes or p values below. Partici- Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised short scale
pants self-reported profanity use in everyday life: given the (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985). The Lie subscale is one
opportunity to use profanity, rated reasons for the use of of the most common measures for assessing individual differ-
profanity, and answered a lie scale. ences in lying for socially desirable responding (Paulhus,
1991). The Lie scale includes 12 items, such as ‘‘If you say you
will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter
how inconvenient it might be?’’ and ‘‘Are all your habits good
Measures and desirable ones?’’ (dichotomous Yes/No scale). In these
Profanity use behavioral measure. In 2 items, participants were examples, positive answers are considered unrealistic and
asked to list their most commonly used and favorite profan- therefore most likely a lie (a ¼ .79). The Lie scale was reversed
ity words: ‘‘Please list the curse words you [1 – use; 2 – for the honesty measure.
like] the most (feel free, don’t hold back).’’ By giving par-
ticipants an opportunity to curse freely, we expected that the
daily usage and enjoyment of profanity would be reflected
Results
in the total number of curse words written. Participants’ The means, standard deviations, and correlations for the hon-
written profanity was counted and coded by the first author esty and profanity measures are detailed in Table 1. Honesty
and a coder unrelated to the project, who was unaware of was positively correlated with all profanity measures, meaning
the study hypotheses and data structure. The interrater relia- that participants lied less on the Lie scale if they wrote down a
bility was .91 (95% confidence interval [CI] [.87, .94]) for higher number of frequently used (r ¼ .20, p ¼ .001; CI [.08,
most commonly used curse words and .93 (95% CI [.91, .31]) and liked curse words (r ¼ .13, p ¼ .032; CI [.01, .24])
.97]) for favorite curse words, indicating a very high level or self-reported higher profanity use in their everyday lives
of agreement. (r ¼ .34, p < .001; CI [.23, .44]), even when controlling for age
and gender (Behavioral 1: partial r ¼ .20, p ¼ .001; CI [.08,
.31]; Behavior 2: partial r ¼ .12, p ¼ .049; CI [.001, .24];
Profanity self-reported use. To supplement the behavioral mea- self-report: partial r ¼ .32, p < .001; CI [.21, .42]).
sures, we also added self-reported use of profanity. Participants We asked participants to rate their reasons for use of profan-
self-reported their everyday use of profanity (Rassin & Muris, ity. The reasons that received the highest ratings were the
2005) using 3 items: ‘‘How often do you curse (swear/use bad expression of negative emotions (M ¼ 4.09, SD ¼ 1.33), habit
language)’’ (1) ‘‘verbally in person (face to face),’’ (2) ‘‘in (M ¼ 3.08, SD ¼ 1.82), and an expression of true self
private (no one around),’’ and (3) ‘‘in writing (e.g., texting/ (M ¼ 2.17, SD ¼ 1.73). Participants also indicated that in their
messaging/posting online/emailing’’; 1 ¼ never, 2 ¼ once a personal experience, profanity was used for being more honest
year or less, 3 ¼ several times a year, 4 ¼ once a month, 5 ¼ about their feelings (M ¼ 2.69, SD ¼ 1.72) and dealing with their
2–3 times a month, 6 ¼ once a week, 7 ¼ 2–3 times a week, negative emotions (M ¼ 2.57, SD ¼ 1.64). Profanity received a
8 ¼ 4–6 times a week, 9 ¼ daily, 10 ¼ a few times a day; a ¼ .84). lower rating as a tool for insulting others (M ¼ 1.41, SD ¼ 1.53)
as well as for being perceived as intimidating or insulting
(M ¼ 1.12, SD ¼ 1.36). This supports the view that people
Reasons for profanity use. Following Rassin and Muris (2005),
regard profanity more as a tool for the expression of their genu-
we also asked participants to rate reasons for their use of
ine emotions rather than being antisocial and harmful.
profanity (0 ¼ never a reason for me to swear; 5 ¼ very often
a reason for me to swear) and asked questions regarding
the general perceived reasons for using profanity (0 ¼ not Study 2—Naturalistic Deceptive Behavior on Facebook
at all; 5 ¼ to a very large extent; see Online Supplemental Study 1 provided initial support for a positive relationship
Materials). between profanity use and honesty, with the limitations of lab
Feldman et al. 819

settings. Study 2 was constructed to extend Study 1 to a natur- Measures

alistic setting—using a larger sample, more accurate measures
We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC Version
of real-life use of profanity, and a different honesty measure.
2007; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010) in order to analyze parti-
With a stellar growth, Facebook has become the world’s
cipants’ status updates. The analysis was conducted by aggre-
most dominant social network and is strongly embedded in its
gating all the status updates of every participant into a single
users’ overall social lives (Manago, Taylor, & Greenfield,
file and executing a LIWC analysis on each user’s combined
2012; Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012). Online social net-
status updates. The LIWC software reported the percentages
working sites such as Facebook now serve as an extension of
of the words in each LIWC category out of all of the words
real-life social context, allowing individuals to express their
used in the combined status updates, as follows:
actual selves (Back et al., 2010). Facebook profiles have been
found to provide fairly accurate portrayals of their users’ per- LIWC category rate user X
sonalities and behaviors (Kosinski, Stillwell, & Graepel, User X word count for LIWC category in all status updates
2013; Schwartz et al., 2013; Wang, Kosinski, Stillwell, & Rust, ¼ :
UserX word count in all status updates
2012), including socially undesirable aspects (Garcia &
Sikström, 2014), such as self-promotion (Waggoner, Smith,
& Collins, 2009; Weisbuch, Ivcevic, & Ambady, 2009), narcis- Honesty. The honesty of the status updates written by the parti-
sism (Buffardi & Campbell, 2008), and low self-esteem cipants was assessed following the approach introduced by
(Zywica & Danowski, 2008). Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, and Richards (2003) using
In this work, we detected dishonesty by analyzing LIWC. Their analyses showed that liars use fewer first-
Facebook users’ status updates that were used to broadcast person pronouns (e.g., I, me), fewer third-person pronouns
messages to their online social network. Using language to tap (e.g., she, their), fewer exclusive words (e.g., but, exclude),
into people’s psyches dates back to Freud (1901), who ana- more motion verbs (e.g., arrive, go), and more negative words
lyzed patients’ slips of the tongue, and Lacan (1968), who (e.g., worried, fearful; Newman, Pennebaker, Berry, &
argued that the unconscious manifests itself in language use. Richards, 2003). The explanation was that dishonest people
A growing body of literature has since demonstrated that the subconsciously try to (1) dissociate themselves from the lie and
language that people use in their daily lives can reveal hidden therefore refrain from referring to themselves, (2) prefer con-
aspects of their personalities, cognitions, and behaviors crete over abstract language when referring to others (using
(Pennebaker, Mehl, & Niederhoffer, 2003). The linguistic someone’s name instead of ‘‘he’’ or ‘‘she’’), (3) are likely to
approach is especially useful in the case of dishonesty, feel discomfort by lying and therefore express more negative
which—though prevalent—is frowned upon when detected, feelings, and (4) require more mental resources to obscure the
and therefore leads those who are acting dishonestly to try lie and therefore end up using less cognitively demanding lan-
to hide it from others (Hancock, 2009; Toma, Hancock, & guage, which is characterized by a lower frequency of exclu-
Ellison, 2008). In the case of Facebook, the dishonesty we sive words and a higher frequency of motion verbs. Equation
refer to is not necessarily blunt deception aimed at exploiting and usage rates in this study are summarized in Table 2.
or harming others but rather a mild distortion of the truth Newman et al. (2003) achieved up to 67% accuracy when
intended to construe a more socially desirable appearance detecting lies, which was significantly higher than the 52%
(Whitty, 2002; Whitty & Gavin, 2001). near-chance accuracy achieved by human judges. Their
approach has been successfully applied to behavioral data
(Slatcher et al., 2007) and to Facebook status updates
Method (Feldman, Chao, Farh, & Bardi, 2015). Other studies have
since found support for these LIWC dimensions as being
Participants and Procedure indicative of lying and dishonesty (Bond & Lee, 2005;
A total of 153,716 participants were recruited using the Hancock, Curry, Goorha, & Woodworth, 2007; see
myPersonality Facebook application (Kosinski, Matz, meta-analyses by DePaulo et al., 2003 and Hauch, Masip,
Gosling, Popov, & Stillwell, 2015). Participants voluntarily Blandón-Gitlin, & Sporer, 2012).
chose to use this application and provided opt-in consent to To calculate the honesty score, we first computed LIWC
record their Facebook profiles, including demographic data scores to obtain participants’ use rate of first-person pronouns,
and their status updates (more information about the myPer- third-person pronouns, exclusive words, motion verbs, and
sonality Facebook application is available at http://myperso anxiety words and then applied average regression coefficients
nality.org). This analysis is limited to users who used the from Newman et al. (2003). Here, we note that we focused on
English version of Facebook, had more than 50 Facebook anxiety words rather than general negative words (which
status updates, and had more than 30 friends (an indication include anxiety, anger, and sadness) due to two considerations.
of being an active Facebook user). The final sample First, it has been suggested that anxiety words may be more
included 73,789 participants (62.0% female, Mage ¼ 25.34, predictive of honesty than overall negative emotions (Newman
Mnetwork size ¼ 272.37; Mstatus updates ¼ 201.28, SDstatus updates et al., 2003). Second, measuring honesty using negative emo-
¼ 167.33; Mwords ¼ 3,181.82, SDwords ¼ 3,014.44). tions with anger words may bias the profanity–honesty
820 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(7)

Table 2. Study 2: Word Analysis of LIWC Categories and Key Words.

LIWC Dimensions Sample LIWC Key Words Honesty Coefficients bs Percentage (M, %) Percentage (SD, %)

First-person pronouns I, me, mine .260 4.21 1.71

Third-person pronouns She, her, him, they, their .250 0.84 0.33
Exclusive words But, without, exclude .419 1.78 0.63
Motion verbs Arrive, car, go .259 1.57 0.53
Anxiety words Worried, fearful, nervous .217 0.21 0.14

Note. LIWC ¼ Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.

Table 3. Study 2: Descriptive Statistics of Honesty, Profanity, and Demographics.

Variables Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Honesty Profanity Age Gender

Honesty (raw) 0 (1.60) 1 (0.60) 0.03 0.02 (—) .22

Profanity (raw) 0.28 (0.37) 0.26 (0.43) 1.37 (2.51) 2.00 (9.49) .20 (—)
Age 25.34 8.78 1.90 3.96 .05 .18 (—)
Gender 0.62 0.49 0.49 1.76 .12 .23 .08 (—)
Network size (raw) 5.30 (272.37) 0.79 (249.71) 0.03 (4.18) 0.25 (39.82) .18 .09 .13 .00 (ns)
Note. Gender coding: 0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female. ns indicates a nonsignificant correlation coefficient; remaining coefficients were significant at p < .001 level; honesty was
standardized; profanity and network size were log transformed. Males used more profanity than females, d ¼ .12 [0.12, 0.13], t(4,6884.67) ¼ 59.26, p < .001,
d ¼ .47, and were less honest, d ¼ 0.14 [0.15, 0.13], t ¼ 31.69, p < .001, d ¼ 0.23. Raw lines indicate statistics for variables before transformations
or standardizing. Values above the diagonal are partial correlations controlling for age, gender, and network size.

correlations because anger has been shown to have a strong Study 3—State-Level Integrity
positive relation with profanity. Holtzman et al. (2010)
Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that the use of profanity is a pre-
reported a correlation of .96 between anger and profanity, and
dictor of honesty at the individual level. Study 3 sought to
Yarkoni (2010) found swearing to be strongly associated with
extend these findings by taking a broader view and examining
anger but not with anxiety, which is not surprising given the
the possible implications that individual differences in use of
conclusion by Jay and Janschewitz (2008) that profanity is
profanity have for society (as suggested by Back & Vazire,
mostly used to express anger.1
2015). If the use of profanity is indeed positively related to hon-
esty, then it can be argued that societies with higher profanity
Profanity. We used the LIWC dictionary of swear words
rates may be characterized by a higher appreciation for honesty
(e.g., damn, piss, fuck) to obtain the participants’ use rate
and genuineness. Study 3 examined whether the state-level use
of profanity. This approach was previously used to ana-
of profanity is predictive of state-level integrity as reported by
lyze swearing patterns in social contexts (e.g., Holtgraves,
the State Integrity Index 2012.
2011; Mehl & Pennebaker, 2003). Profanity use rates were
calculated per each participant using LIWC, with rates
indicating the percentage of swear words used in all status Measures
updates by the participant overall. Profanity use rates
State-level profanity. State-level profanity scores were computed
were then log-transformed to normalize distribution
by averaging the profanity scores of the American participants
(ln[profanity þ 1]).
in Study 2 (29,701 participants) across the states. The state
profanity scores are detailed in Table 4.
Results State-level integrity. State-level integrity was obtained from the
The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of all vari- State Integrity Investigation 2012 (SSI2012), the year that the
ables are provided in Table 3. The mean of profanity use was myPersonality data collection was concluded. Estimating state
0.37% (SD ¼ 0.43%; 7,969 [10.8%] used no profanity at all), levels of integrity and corruption is a complicated and contro-
which is in line with previous findings (Jay, 2009). Profanity versial issue. For example, corruption was sometimes mea-
and honesty were found to be significantly and positively cor- sured with the number of corruption convictions per state, yet
related (N ¼ 73,789; r ¼ .20, p < .001; 95% CI [.19, .21]; see a higher conviction rate can be indicative of better policing and
Figure 1 for an aggregated plot), indicating that those who used thus lower corruption. We therefore used an index of integrity
more profanity were more honest in their Facebook status that is less affected by possible conflicting interpretations of
updates. Controlling for age, gender, and network size resulted crime and conviction statistics: the SSI2012. The SSI2012
in a slightly stronger effect (partial r ¼ .22, p < .001; 95% CI ranks the states on 14 broad integrity criteria, including stance
[.21, .22]). on honesty and transparency; the presence of independent
Feldman et al. 821

Figure 1. Study 2: the relationship between profanity and honesty (Model 2). The first two scatterplots are of two randomly chosen 1% subsets
of the total population (Plot 1: n ¼ 750; Plot 2: n ¼ 721). The third graph is a plot of aggregated honesty groups, and average profanity was
computed for five equal groups of participants based on their honesty. The honesty score was standardized to the mean of 0 and standard
deviation of 1. Error bars indicate a 95% confidence interval. The profanity rate is in percentages (e.g., 0.25 is 0.25% use).

ethics commissions; and executive, legislative, and judicial (Merryman, 2008) for the distance between states’ centroids
accountability. State integrity scores are detailed in Table 4. using the following formula for Euclidean distance between
More information about how the State Integrity scores were State A and State B (y and x denote the y coordinate and x coor-
obtained can be found in the Online Supplemental Materials. dinate, respectively):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Results dðxA ; yA ; xB ; yB Þ ¼ ðyA  yB Þ2 þ ðxA  xB Þ2 :
A scatterplot of profanity and integrity rates for all states is pro- We then inverted the distances (1/X) to form a proximity
vided in Figure 2. We found a positive relationship between measure, multiplied the proximity matrix by the state profanity
profanity and integrity on a state level (N ¼ 50; r ¼ .35, p ¼ column, and divided by the sum to create a measure of spatial
.014; CI [.08, .57]). States with a higher profanity rate had a lag—a spatial weighted profanity per each state (Webster &
higher integrity score.2 For example, two of the three states Duffy, 2016). Excluding Hawaii and Alaska for their geogra-
with the highest profanity rate, Connecticut and New Jersey, phical isolation, the spatial profanity measure had a correlation
were also two of the three states with the highest integrity of r ¼ .55 with the state profanity measure (n ¼ 48; p < .001; CI
scores on the index. [.32, .72]; Moran I statistic ¼ .15, p < .001), indicative of spa-
We also conducted a spatial regression analysis to address tial dependence. After controlling for the spatial profanity, the
possible spatial-dependence regional confounds (Ward & partial correlation between profanity and integrity was r ¼ .33
Gleditsch, 2008). We calculated spatial distance matrices (p ¼ .025, CI [.05, .56]).
822 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(7)

Table 4. Study 3: State-Level Profanity and Integrity Rates.

State Profanity Rate Integrity State Profanity Rate Integrity State Profanity Rate Integrity

Alabama 34 72 Maine 33 56 Oregon 36 73

Alaska 42 68 Maryland 46 61 Pennsylvania 42 71
Arizona 41 68 Massachusetts 46 74 Rhode Island 44 74
Arkansas 29 68 Michigan 41 58 South Carolina 29 57
California 44 81 Minnesota 39 69 South Dakota 38 50
Colorado 39 67 Mississippi 33 79 Tennessee 32 76
Connecticut 52 86 Missouri 37 72 Texas 38 68
Delaware 51 70 Montana 35 68 Utah 26 65
Florida 41 71 Nebraska 42 80 Vermont 35 69
Georgia 36 49 Nevada 47 60 Virginia 40 55
Hawaii 45 74 New Hampshire 36 66 Washington 36 83
Idaho 31 61 New Jersey 50 87 West Virginia 34 68
Illinois 45 74 New Mexico 34 62 Wisconsin 39 70
Indiana 35 70 New York 46 65 Wyoming 34 52
Iowa 40 87 North Carolina 37 71
Kansas 39 75 North Dakota 37 58
Kentucky 37 71 Ohio 39 66
Louisiana 35 72 Oklahoma 33 64
Note. Integrity is the State Integrity Investigation 2012 index. Profanity rates were aggregated to the state level from the Study 2 Facebook profanity rates for
American participants.

Figure 2. Study 3: scatterplot presenting integrity and profanity rates across 50 U.S. states.

General Discussion Challenges in Studying Profanity and Dishonesty

We examined the relationship between the use of profanity in Naturalistic Settings
and dishonesty and showed that profanity is positively cor- The empirical investigation of the relationship between dishon-
related with honesty at an individual level and with integ- esty and profanity poses a unique challenge. The behavioral
rity at a society level. Table 5 provides a summary of the ethics literature has been successful in devising ways to exam-
results. Study 1 showed that participants with higher ine unethical behavior in the lab, yet observing dishonesty and
profanity use were more honest on a lie scale, and in Study unethical behavior in the field remains an ongoing challenge,
2, profanity was associated with more honest language pat- and so far only a few studies were able to devise innovative
terns in Facebook status updates. In Study 3, state-level methods to overcome that challenge (e.g., Hofmann et al.,
profane language usage was positively related to state- 2014; Piff, Stancato, Côté, Mendoza-Denton, & Keltner,
level integrity. 2012). The indirect linguistic approach for the detection of
Feldman et al. 823

Table 5. Summary of the Results.

Sample Level of
# Size Sample Type Analysis Profanity Measure(s) Honesty Measure Effect

1 276 American English native Individual 1–2: Counts of written profanity Eysenck Personality Questionnaire .20/.13/.34
MTurk workers 3: Self-report Revised short scale
2 73,789 English version Facebook Individual Rate of profanity in language used Derivative of standard LIWC dimensions .20 (.22)
users in status updates (Newman, Pennebaker, Berry,
& Richard, 2003)
3 50 (48) States in the United States State Average profanity in language used State Integrity Investigation 2012 index .35 (.33)
in status updates
Note. Effects in parentheses are effects while controlling for other factors (Study 2: age, gender, and network size; Study 3: spatial distance). LIWC ¼ Linguistic
Inquiry and Word Count.

dishonesty with an analysis of spoken and written language pat- an attempt involves many challenges, as there are many vari-
terns paves the way for more behavioral ethics research on ables that may intervene or offer competing explanations for
actual dishonest behavior in the field. a detected relationship. Yet we believe that this is an important
Unlike behavioral ethics, the study of profanity is still very first attempt to provide a baseline for further investigation. The
much in its infancy (Jay, 2009). Profanity is a much harder con- consistent findings across the studies suggest that the positive
struct to measure and even more difficult to effectively elicit or relation between profanity and honesty is robust and that the
manipulate, whether it is in the lab or in the field. The relatively relationship found at the individual level indeed translates to
low use rates of profanity decrease even further when people the society level.
know that they are observed or that their behavior is studied.
Therefore, to be able to gain an understanding of profanity use, Implications and Future Directions
it is important that the behavior observed is genuine and in nat-
uralistic settings. The current investigation has been able to We briefly note several limitations in the current research and
address this challenge by applying a linguistic analysis these are further discussed in the Online Supplemental Materi-
approach to a unique large-scale naturalistic behavior data set. als with implications and future directions. First, the three stud-
The linguistic approach to detecting dishonesty used in ies were correlational, thus preventing us from drawing any
Study 2 has been used and verified in a number of previous causal conclusions. Second, the dishonesty we examined in
studies (e.g., Feldman et al., 2015; Slatcher et al., 2007). In Studies 1 and 2 was mainly about self-promoting deception
Study 2, the linguistic analysis showed that men tended to be to appear more desirable to others rather than blunt unethical
more dishonest than women, which is in line with a large body behavior. We therefore caution that the findings should not
of literature presenting similar findings (Childs, 2012; Dreber be interpreted to mean that the more a person uses profanity,
& Johannesson, 2008; Friesen & Gangadharan, 2012). Also, the less likely he or she will engage in more serious unethical
those with larger networks had a higher likelihood for dishon- or immoral behaviors. Third, the measures in Study 2 were
esty and a lower likelihood for profanity, which supports the proxies using an aggregation of linguistic analysis of online
notion of dishonesty online as a means of creating a more behavior using Facebook over a long period of time. Finally,
socially desirable profile. Both findings contribute to the con- Simpson’s Paradox (Simpson, 1951) points to conceptual and
struct validity of the linguist honesty measure by demonstrating empirical differences in testing a relationship on different lev-
previously established nomological networks. The consistency els of analysis, and therefore the state-level findings of Study 3
in the direction and effect size of the profanity–honesty rela- are conceptually broader than the findings in Studies 1 and 2.
tionship across the three studies further raises confidence in this These limitations notwithstanding, our research is a first step
approach to measuring dishonesty. in exploring the profanity–honesty relationship, and we believe
that the consistent effect across samples, methodology, and lev-
els of analysis contributes to our understanding of the two con-
Extending to Society Level structs and paves the way for future research. Future studies
Our research offers a first look at the use of profanity at a soci- could build on our findings to further study the profanity–hon-
ety level. Using the large-scale sample of American partici- esty relationship using experimental methods to establish causal-
pants from Study 2, we were able to calculate state-level ity and incorporating real-life behavioral measures with a wider
rates of profanity for use in Study 3. Addressing calls for psy- range of dishonest conduct including unethical behavior.
chological research to attempt to examine the social implica-
tions of psychological findings (Back, 2015; Back & Vazire,
2015), we used this measure in order to examine whether the
Conclusion
positive relationship between profanity and honesty found at We set out to provide an empirical answer to competing views
the individual level could be extended to the society level. Such regarding the relationship between profanity and honesty. In
824 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(7)

three studies, at both the individual and society level, we found Back, M. D. (2015). Opening the process black box: Mechanisms
that a higher rate of profanity use was associated with more underlying the social consequences of personality. European
honesty. This research makes several important contributions Journal of Personality, 29, 91–96.
by taking a first step to examine profanity and honesty Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C.,
enacted in naturalistic settings, using large samples, and Egloff, B., & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect
extending findings from the individual level to a look at the actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science,
implications for society. 21, 372–374.
Back, M. D., & Vazire, S. (2015). The social consequences of person-
Authors’ Note ality: Six suggestions for future research. European Journal of
Personality, 29, 296–307.
Gilad Feldman developed the paper concept, performed testing, data
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a mea-
analysis, results interpretation, and writing. Huiwen Lian contributed
sure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
to concept framing, writing, and provided input and feedback through-
349–360.
out. Michal Kosinski and David Stillwell built the myPersonality plat-
Bond, G. D., & Lee, A. Y. (2005). Language of lies in prison: Linguis-
form used in Studies 2 and 3, collected and coded the data, and
tic classification of prisoners’ truthful and deceptive natural lan-
performed the linguistic analyses. All authors provided critical revi-
guage. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 313–329.
sions and approved the article for submission. M. Kosinski and D.
Buchtel, E. E., Guan, Y., Peng, Q., Su, Y., Sang, B., Chen, S. X., &
Stillwell were equally contributed to this work.
Bond, M. H. (2015). Immorality east and west: Are immoral beha-
viors especially harmful, or especially uncivilized? Personality
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1382–1394.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social net-
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. working web sites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,
1303–1314.
Funding Cavanna, A. E., & Rickards, H. (2013). The psychopathological spec-
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- trum of Gilles de la Tourette syndrome. Neuroscience & Biobeha-
ship, and/or publication of this article. vioral Reviews, 37, 1008–1015.
Childs, J. (2012). Gender differences in lying. Economics Letters, 114,
Supplemental Material 147–149.
DePaulo, B. M., & Kashy, D. A. (1998). Everyday lies in close and
The supplemental material is available in the online version of
casual relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
the article.
ogy, 74, 63–79.
DePaulo, B. M., Kashy, D. A., Kirkendol, S. E., Wyer, M. M., &
Notes
Epstein, J. A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personal-
1. The Online Supplemental Materials include further details and a ity and Social Psychology, 70, 979–995.
report of the results using the original equation of negative emo- DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charl-
tions including anger (r ¼ .02, p < .001; 95% CI [.01, .03]; with ton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological
controls: partial r ¼ .04, p < .001; 95% CI [.03, .05]). Bulletin, 129, 74–118.
2. We noted problems in using crime and conviction rates in the meth- Dreber, A., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Gender differences in decep-
ods but ran several robustness checks. Higher state average of tion. Economics Letters, 99, 197–199.
profanity use was negatively correlated with state rates of property Eysenck, S. B., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version
crime (r ¼ .30, p ¼ .032), burglary (r ¼ .31, p ¼ .029), larceny of the psychoticism scale. Personality and Individual Differences,
theft (r ¼ .34, p ¼ .015), and rape (r ¼ .24, p ¼ .093)— 6, 21–29.
obtained from the Federal Bureau of Investigation website. Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2013). Why we cheat. Scientific Amer-
ican Mind, 24, 30–37.
References Feldman, G., Chao, M. M., Farh, J. L., & Bardi, A. (2015). The moti-
Abe, N. (2011). How the brain shapes deception: An integrated review vation and inhibition of breaking the rules: Personal values struc-
of the literature. The Neuroscientist, 17, 560–574. tures predict unethicality. Journal of Research in Personality,
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. 59, 69–80.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1423–1440. Freud, S. (1901). The psychopathology of everyday life. In J. Strachey
Are people who swear more honest? Debate.org. Retrieved December (Ed. and Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychologi-
1, 2015, from http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-people-who- cal works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. VI). London, England: Hogarth.
swear-more-honest Friesen, L., & Gangadharan, L. (2012). Individual level evidence of
Ayal, S., & Gino, F. (2012). Honest rationales for dishonest behavior. dishonesty and the gender effect. Economics Letters, 117,
In M. Mikulincer & P. G. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of 624–626.
morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (pp. 149–166). Garcia, D., & Sikström, S. (2014). The dark side of Facebook:
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Semantic representations of status updates predict the Dark
Feldman et al. 825

Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, Kosinski, M., Matz, S. C., Gosling, S. D., Popov, V., & Stillwell, D.
67, 92–96. (2015). Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: Oppor-
Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation tunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guide-
in unethical behavior: The effect of one bad apple on the barrel. lines. American Psychologist, 70, 543.
Psychological Science, 20, 393–398. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and
Granhag, P. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Deception detection. In N. Brewer attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior.
& K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical per- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 110,
spective (pp. 43–92). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 5802–5805.
Halevy, R., Shalvi, S., & Verschuere, B. (2013). Being honest about Lacan, J. (1968). The language of the self (A. Wilden, Trans.). Balti-
dishonesty: Correlating self-reports and actual lying. Human Com- more, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
munication Research, 40, 54–72. Mabry, E. A. (1974). Dimensions of profanity. Psychological Reports,
Hancock, J. T. (2009). Digital deception: Why, when and how people 35, 387–391.
lie online. In A. N. Joinson, K. Y. A. McKenna, T. Postmes, & U. Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my
Reips (Eds.), Oxford handbook of internet psychology (pp. 400 friends: The anatomy of college students’ Facebook networks,
289–301). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental
Hancock, J. T., Curry, L. E., Goorha, S., & Woodworth, M. (2007). Psychology, 48, 369–380.
On lying and being lied to: A linguistic analysis of deception in Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest
computer-mediated communication. Discourse Processes, 45, people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Market-
1–23. ing Research, 45, 633–644.
Hauch, V., Masip, J., Blandón-Gitlin, I., & Sporer, S. L. (2012). Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality
Linguistic cues to deception assessed by computer programs: A in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of
meta-analysis. In Proceedings of the EACL 2012 Workshop on Com- personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
putational Approaches to Deception Detection (pp. 1–4). Avignon, chology, 90, 862–877.
France: Association for Computational Linguistics. Mehl, M. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2003). The sounds of social life: A
Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. (2014). psychometric analysis of students’ daily social environments and
Morality in everyday life. Science, 345, 1340–1343. natural conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Holtgraves, T. (2011). Text messaging, personality, and the social ogy, 84, 857–870.
context. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 92–99. Merryman, S. (2008). USSWM: Stata module to provide US state and
Holtzman, N. S., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2010). Sounds like a nar- county spatial weight (contiguity) matrices. Statistical Software
cissist: Behavioral manifestations of narcissism in everyday life. Components.
Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 478–484. Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J., Buckley, J., & Jayne, B. (2011). Criminal inter- (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles.
rogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 665–675.
Bartlett. Patrick, G. T. W. (1901). The psychology of profanity. Psychological
Jay, T. (1992). Cursing in America: A psycholinguistic study of dirty Review, 8, 113–127.
language in the courts, in the movies, in the schoolyards and on the Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.
streets. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of
Jay, T. (2000). Why we curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech. personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives Peer, E., Acquisti, A., & Shalvi, S. (2014). ‘‘I cheated, but only a lit-
on Psychological Science, 4, 153–161. tle’’: Partial confessions to unethical behavior. Journal of Person-
Jay, T., Caldwell-Harris, C., & King, K. (2008). Recalling taboo and ality and Social Psychology, 106, 202–217.
nontaboo words. The American Journal of Psychology, 121, Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. G. (2003). Psy-
83–103. chological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves.
Jay, T., & Janschewitz, K. (2008). The pragmatics of swearing. Jour- Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577.
nal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4, Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Côté, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Keltner,
267–288. D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased unethical beha-
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical vior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA,
leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Busi- 109, 4086–4091.
ness Ethics, 100, 349–366. Rassin, E., & Heijden, S. V. D. (2005). Appearing credible? Swearing
Kaplan, H. B. (1975). Increase in self-rejection as an antecedent of helps! Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 177–182.
deviant responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 4, 281–292. Rassin, E., & Muris, P. (2005). Indecisiveness and the interpretation of
Kaye, B. K., & Sapolsky, B. S. (2009). Taboo or not taboo? That is the ambiguous situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 39,
question: Offensive language on prime-time broadcast and cable 1285–1291.
programming. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, Robbins, M. L., Focella, E. S., Kasle, S., López, A. M., Weihs, K. L.,
22–37. & Mehl, M. R. (2011). Naturalistically observed swearing,
826 Social Psychological and Personality Science 8(7)

emotional support, and depressive symptoms in women coping and work group psychological safety. Journal of Applied Psychol-
with illness. Health Psychology, 30, 789–792. ogy, 94, 1275–1286.
Sapolsky, B. S., & Kaye, B. K. (2005). The use of offensive language Wang, N., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Rust, J. (2012). Can well-
by men and women in prime time television entertainment. Atlan- being be measured using facebook status updates? Validation of
tic Journal of Communication, 13, 292–303. facebook’s gross national happiness index. Social Indicators
Scherer, C. R., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Indecent influence: The pos- Research, 115, 1–9.
itive effects of obscenity on persuasion. Social Influence, 1, Ward, M. D., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2008). Spatial regression models
138–146. (Vol. 155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Weisbuch, M., Ivcevic, Z., & Ambady, N. (2009). On being liked on
Ramones, S. M., Agrawal, M., . . . Ungar, L. H. (2013). Personality, the web and in the ‘‘real world’’: Consistency in first impressions
gender, and age in the language of social media: The open- across personal webpages and spontaneous behavior. Journal of
vocabulary approach. PLoS One, 8, e73791. Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 573–576.
Serota, K. B., Levine, T. R., & Boster, F. J. (2010). The prevalence of Webster, D., & Duffy, D. (2016). Losing faith in the intelligence–reli-
lying in America: Three studies of self-reported lies. Human Com- giosity link: New evidence for a decline effect, spatial dependence,
munication Research, 36, 2–25. and mediation by education and life quality. Intelligence, 55,
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contin- 15–27.
gency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B Whitty, M., & Gavin, J. (2001). Age/sex/location: Uncovering the
(Methodological), 13, 238–241. social cues in the development of online relationships. Cyberpsy-
Slatcher, R. B., Chung, C. K., Pennebaker, J. W., & Stone, L. D. chology & Behavior, 4, 623–630.
(2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style Whitty, M. T. (2002). Liar, liar! An examination of how open, suppor-
among U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates. Journal tive and honest people are in chat rooms. Computers in Human
of Research in Personality, 41, 63–75. Behavior, 18, 343–352.
Sopan, D. (2015, September 30). Donald Trump uses profanity to Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., & Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of
describe Bush–Rubio relationship. CBS News. Retrieved from facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psycho-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-uses-profanity-to- logical Science, 7, 203–220.
describe-bush-rubio-relationship Yarkoni, T. (2010). Personality in 100,000 words: A large-scale anal-
Stone, T. E., McMillan, M., & Hazelton, M. (2015). Back to swear ysis of personality and word use among bloggers. Journal of
one: A review of English language literature on swearing and cur- Research in Personality, 44, 363–373.
sing in Western health settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior, Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The faces of facebookers: Inves-
25, 65–74. tigating social enhancement and social compensation hypotheses;
Sumner, C., Byers, A., Boochever, R., & Park, G. J. (2012). Predicting predicting FacebookTM and offline popularity from sociability
dark triad personality traits from Twitter usage and a linguistic and self-esteem, and mapping the meanings of popularity with
analysis of tweets. Proceedings from ICMLA ‘12: The 2012 11th semantic networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, tion, 14, 1–34.
2, 386–393.
Sylwester, K., & Purver, M. (2015). Twitter language use reflects psy- Author Biographies
chological differences between democrats and republicans. PLoS
One, 10, e0137422. Gilad Feldman is a postdoctoral research fellow with the work and
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological social psychology department at Maastricht University. His research
meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. focuses on morality, personal values, lay-beliefs, and judgment deci-
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. sion-making.
Toma, C. L., Hancock, J. T., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Separating fact Huiwen Lian is an associate professor of management at the Hong
from fiction: An examination of deceptive self-presentation in Kong University of Science and Technology. Her research focuses
online dating profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, on leadership, abusive supervision, and deviant behavior.
34, 1023–1036.
Vingerhoets, A. J., Bylsma, L. M., & de Vlam, C. (2013). Swearing: A Michal Kosinski is an assistant professor in organizational behavior
biopsychosocial perspective. Psihologijske Teme, 22, 287–304. at Stanford Graduate School of Business and his research focuses on
Waggoner, A. S., Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009). Person percep- individual differences in behavior, preferences, and performance.
tion by active versus passive perceivers. Journal of Experimental
David Stillwell is a lecturer in big data analytics and quantitative
Social Psychology, 45, 1028–1031.
social sciences at Judge Business School University of Cambridge.
Walumbwa, F. O., & Schaubroeck, J. (2009). Leader personality traits
and employee voice behavior: Mediating roles of ethical leadership Handling Editor: Gregory Webster