We are in the midst of a technological revolution whereby, for the first time, researchers can link daily word use to a broad array of real-world behaviors. This article reviews several computerized text analysis methods and describes how Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) was created and validated. LIWC is a transparent text analysis program that counts words in psychologically meaningful categories. Empirical results using LIWC demonstrate its ability to detect meaning in a wide variety of experimental settings, including to show attentional focus, emotionality, social relationships, thinking styles, and individual differences. Keywords computerized text analysis, LIWC, relationships, dominance, deception, attention, pronouns James J. Bradac (1986 Bradac ( , 1999 celebrated the many ways that scientists could simultaneously study both language and human communication. He understood the value of highly controlled laboratory studies and, at the same time, the importance of exploring the ways people naturally talk in the real world. Of particular importance to him, however, was that language research replicates its theories and findings across a wide array of methods and samples. This article draws heavily from Bradac's approach to research by applying a new array of computer-based text analysis tools to the study of everyday language.  Tausczik and Pennebaker The words we use in daily life reflect who we are and the social relationships we are in. This is neither a new nor surprising insight. Language is the most common and reliable way for people to translate their internal thoughts and emotions into a form that others can understand. Words and language, then, are the very stuff of psychology and communication. They are the medium by which cognitive, personality, clinical, and social psychologists attempt to understand human beings. The simultaneous development of high-speed personal computers, the Internet, and elegant new statistical strategies have helped usher in a new age of the psychological study of language. By drawing on massive amounts of text, researchers can begin to link everyday language use with behavioral and self-reported measures of personality, social behavior, and cognitive styles. Beginning in the early 1990s, we stumbled on the remarkable potential of computerized text analysis through the development of our own computer program-Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) . We are now witnessing new generations of text analysis coming from computer sciences and computational linguistics. This article is divided into three sections. The first is a brief history of text analysis in psychology. The second focuses on our own efforts to develop LIWC along with some of the basic psychometrics of words. The third explores the links between word usage and basic social and personality processes. The roots of modern text analysis go back to the earliest days of psychology. Freud (1901) wrote about slips of the tongue whereby a person's hidden intentions would reveal themselves in apparent linguistic mistakes. Rorschach and others (e.g., Holtzman, 1950; Rorschach, 1921) developed projective tests to detect people's thoughts, intentions, and motives from the way they described ambiguous inkblots. McClelland and a generation of thematic apperception test (TAT) researchers (e.g., McClelland, 1979; Winter, 1998) found that the stories people told in response to drawings of people could provide important clues to their needs for affiliation, power, and achievement. In all cases, trained raters read the transcripts of people's descriptions and tagged words or phrases that represented the dimensions the investigators were studying. More general and less stimulus-bound approaches began to evolve in the 1950s. Gottschalk and his colleagues (e.g., Gottschalk & Gleser, 1969; Gottschalk, Gleser, Daniels, & Block, 1958) developed a content-analysis method by which to track Freudian themes in text samples. The original Gottschalk method required patients to talk in a stream of consciousness way into a tape recorder for 5 minutes. The language samples were transcribed and broken down into grammatical phrases. Judges, then, evaluated each phrase to determine the degree it might reflect one or more themes related to anxiety (e.g., death, castration), hostility toward self or others, and various interpersonal and psychological topics. The Gottschalk method later was used in the psychiatric diagnoses of cognitive impairments, alcohol abuse, brain damage, and mental disorders. Attempts to translate the original Gottschalk-Gleser scoring scheme Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29(1) to a computer program have proven difficult with modest correlations to the judgebased "gold standard" (e.g., Gottschalk & Bechtel, 1993) . The first general purpose computerized text analysis program in psychology was developed by Philip Stone and his colleagues (Rosenberg & Tucker, 1978; Stone, Dunphy, Smith, & Ogilvie, 1966) . Using a mainframe computer, the authors built a complex program that adapted McClelland's need-based coding schemes to any openended text. The program, called General Inquirer, relied on a series of author-developed algorithms. The General Inquirer and other programs like it (e.g., Hart's, 1984, DICTION program; Martindale, 1990) have proven valuable in distinguishing mental disorders, assessing personality dimensions, and evaluating speeches. One limitation of these approaches is that they have relied on the manipulation and weighting of language variables that were not visible to the user. The first truly transparent text analysis method was pioneered by Walter Weintraub (1981, 1989). Weintraub, a physician by training, became fascinated by the everyday words people used-words such as pronouns and articles. Over the span of a decade, he hand-counted people's words in texts such as political speeches and medical interviews. He noticed that first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me, my) were reliably linked to people's levels of depression. Although his methods were straightforward and his findings consistently related to important outcome measures, his work was largely ignored. His observation that the simple words of everyday speech reflected psychological state nevertheless was prescient. (See also the work of Mergenthaler, 1996, who developed a computer program TAS/C that taps abstraction and emotion in psychotherapy sessions.) In the 1980s, we discovered that when people were asked to write about emotional upheavals in their lives they subsequently evidenced improvements in physical health (e.g., Pennebaker & Beall, 1986) . The first group of writing studies generated hundreds of writing samples that revealed deeply moving human stories. Intuitively, the ways the stories were written should have been related to whether people's health improved or not. In an attempt to link the stories with health outcomes, judges were asked to read the emotional essays and to rate them along multiple dimensions. Some of the categories included the degree to which the stories were organized, coherent, personal, emotional, vivid, optimistic, and evidenced insight. Relying on judges' ratings yielded three important findings: (a) even with in-depth training, judges do not agree with each other in rating most dimensions when evaluating a broad range of deeply personal stories; (b) rating essays by multiple judges is extremely slow and expensive; and (c) judges tend to get depressed when reading depressing stories. To find a more efficient evaluation method, we turned to the promise of computerized text analysis programs to assess the essays. At the time, no simple text analysis program existed. Consequently, Martha Francis and the second author began the task Tausczik and Pennebaker 27 of developing one. Our goal was to create a program that simply looked for and counted words in psychology-relevant categories across multiple text files. The result has been an ever-changing computer program named Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, or LIWC (pronounced "Luke"). The LIWC program has two central features-the processing component and the dictionaries. The processing feature is the program itself, which opens a series of text files-which can be essays, poems, blogs, novels, and so on-and then goes through each file word by word. Each word in a given text file is compared with the dictionary file. For example, if LIWC were analyzing the first line of the novel Paul Clifford by Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1842): It was a dark and stormy night the program would first look at the word "it" and then see if "it" was in the dictionary. It is and is coded as a function word, a pronoun, and, more specifically, an impersonal pronoun. All three of these LIWC categories would then be incremented. Next, the word "was" would be checked and would be found to be associated with the categories of verbs, auxiliary verbs, and past tense verbs. After going through all the words in the novel, LIWC would calculate the percentage of each LIWC category. So, for example, we might discover that 2.34% of all the words in a given book were impersonal pronouns and 3.33% were auxiliary verbs. The LIWC output, then, lists all LIWC categories and the rates that each category was used in the given text. The dictionaries are the heart of the LIWC program. A dictionary refers to the collection of words that define a particular category. When LIWC was first created, the goal was fairly modest. We simply wanted the computer to calculate the percentage of positive and negative emotion words within a text. To do this, we needed to specify exactly which words to look for. Based on our judges' ratings, we also wanted to include measures of thinking styles-for example, signs of self-reflection, and causal thinking. Over several weeks, the number of categories we were interested in expanded from the original 2 to more than 80. Across the 80 categories, several language dimensions are straightforward. For example, the category of articles is made up of three words: "a," "an," and "the." Other dimensions are more subjective. For example, the emotion word categories required human judges to evaluate which words were suited for which categories. For all subjective categories, an initial selection of word candidates was gleaned from dictionaries, thesauruses, questionnaires, and lists made by research assistants. Groups of three judges then independently rated whether each word candidate was appropriate to the overall word category. 28 All category word lists were updated by the following set of rules: (a) a word remained in the category list if two out of three judges agreed it should be included; (b) a word was deleted from the category list if at least two of the three judges agreed it should be excluded; and (c) a word was added to the category list if two out of three judges agreed it should be included. This entire process was then repeated a final time by a separate group of three judges. The final percentages of judges' agreement for this second rating phase ranged from 93% to 100% agreement. The initial LIWC judging took place between 1992 and 1994. A significant LIWC revision was undertaken in 1997 and again in 2007 to streamline the original program and dictionaries. Text files from several dozen studies, totaling more than 100 million words were analyzed. Some low base rate word categories were deleted and others were added. For details of the process and specific findings, see Pennebaker, Chung, Ireland, Gonzales, and Booth (2007) .
We use Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC), a resource that cross-references word tokens with dictionaries containing categories of words such as positive/negative emotion and first/second/third person REF .
The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
Psychology