As humans, we strive to maintain a positive image of the self. Our self-image is influenced by many things, but is strongly affected by a desire to maintain a perception of competency and morality. Additionally, humans have a desire to be accepted by a social group by performing socially desirable actions. In the wake of the midterm election, I would like to bring to light a fascinating study I found that demonstrates how linguistic cues can influence behavior.
A
study conducted in 2008 by researchers collaborating from Stanford and Harvard
found that subtle linguistic cues increase voting and related behavior (Bryan,
C. J., Walton, G. M., Rogers, T., & Dweck, C. S.; 2011). The researchers
conducted three studies: in each, participants received one of two surveys. In
one survey, the questions were phrased in a way that incorporated a
self-relevant noun (i.e. “How important is it to you to be a voter in the
upcoming election); in the other survey, questions were phrased in a way that
emphasizes the action of voting (i.e. “How important is it to you to vote in
the upcoming election”). This study builds on earlier research that lexicalization
(using a noun label to refer to someone with a certain property, i.e. “voter”)
influences the inferences that people derive from a sentence.
The
researchers found that those who were asked if they would be a “voter” were
significantly more likely to vote than those who were asked if they would
“vote.” The researchers posit that people’s desire to maintain their
self-identity through the aggregation of noun phrases (i.e. singer, voter,
student) can be used in order to motivate behavior that is congruent with a
positive image of the self. Thus, the mere act of asking someone “Will you be a
voter?” makes them more likely to actually vote than asking them “Will you
vote?” The researchers emphasize, however, that the opposite effect would be
expected if people were asked, “Are you going to cheat?” versus “Are you going
to be a cheater?” because this lexicalized phrase has a meaning that is
incongruent with a positive self-image.
Relating
this research to our class, I think this study really highlights how subtle linguistic
changes can cause shifts in semantic meaning, especially with respect to
quantity. For example, children believe that someone described as a “carrot
eater” likes carrots more than someone who “eats carrots whenever they can”
(Gelman S.A., Heyman G.D.; 1999). These researchers hypothesized that the
lexicalized nouns were associated with stable personality characteristics.
Interestingly,
the properties that delineate positive-associated noun phrases from negatively
associated ones vary widely by context. The pragmatic implication of “Are you
going to quit?” and “Are you going to be a quitter?” changes depending on whether they are used as the slogan of an anti-smoking campaign
or asked of an athlete as they are approaching the finish line. In either case
however, the present research supports the idea that we consider the lexicalized
noun-phrase to be weightier because it brushes our desire to maintain our self-concept.
Opening
this question up to larger discussion, to what extent do you consider yourself
a VERB-er rather than one who VERBs, and have these two categories ever come
into conflict? If so, why? Do you agree that the lexicalized noun-phrase has a more
permanent connotation, as the research suggests?
Works Cited
Bryan, C. J., Walton, G. M., Rogers,
T., & Dweck, C. S. (2011). Motivating voter turnout by invoking the
self. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(31),
12653-12656.
Gelman, S.A., & Heyman, G.D. (1999). Carrot-eaters and creature-believers: The effects of lexicalization on children's inferences about social categories. Psychological Science, 10(6), 489-493.
Something that came to mind while reading this is our word choice when it comes to describe occupations. Whenever we want to describe someone that spends a considerable amount of time to make a living out of a certain activity, we have learned to use a lexicated noun-phrase to describe them, so that "one who bakes for a living" becomes a "baker", and "one who teaches for a living" is called a "teacher". Moreover, whenever someone displays enough talent or dedication to a certain activity, we tend to describe them in terms of one who would do such an activity very often, or even for a living. For example, having excellent skills in juggling might merit the title of "juggler" from peers, whereas having mediocre juggling skills or not spending too much time juggling will not take one farther than the description of "someone who juggles". In this way, I feel, using a lexicated noun-phrase can suggest more permanence than a verb.
ReplyDeleteWow!!! What an amazing post! This strikes at the heart of what motivates most people on a very powerful yet subtle level. Our identities are intricately wrapped in notions of self based upon lexicalized nouns. Doing something does not connote identity. An individual activity can be a one off experience mandated by a fleeting circumstance. Being something, however, implies permanence. Looking back to my high school days as a wrestler my coach used lexicalized noun phrases all the time to motivate our team. He didn't ask "are you going to win?", he asked, "are you a winner?" My dad never asked, "are you going to lead?", he always asked, "are you a leader?" These subtle cues influenced my personal development, all explained by lexicalized noun phrases. The more I study linguistics the more I marvel at the power it has to influence our thoughts and actions. I don't just believe linguistics is cool. I am a believer!
ReplyDeleteThis is incredibly fascinating. I personally say "I figure skate" more than "I am a figure skater." My relationship with figure skating is a bit slippery (pun intended) because I started skating relatively late and, as a result, I am not that good compared to other skaters my age, yet I am better than the average person. So I think I probably say "I figure skate" more often because I don't feel that my skating skills warrant me to identify as A figure skater rather than someone who just skates in their free time (despite the fact that I went to the rink 3 or 4 times a week in high school). However I think many people probably do the same thing when talking about hobbies and extracurriculars. For instance, someone who has played piano since they were 4 might still say "I play piano" rather than "I am a pianist" unless they actually play piano professionally. Maybe this is just our natural humility coming out, but I think it would be interesting to know how much time and effort we have to put into an activity before we can identify with it enough to say “I am a VERBer.”
ReplyDeleteThis idea is rather interesting, especially when you take into account the fact that there are so many languages where expressions like "I am a voter" (as opposed to "I vote.") sounds unnatural. So if possible, the researchers who reached the conclusion should definitely want to consider more cross linguistic evidence to examine whether it is universally true that nouns reflect a self association more stronger than verbs, or it's just a special feature of how English speakers tend to construct their sentences more naturally.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the conclusion, if true, should prompt us to think more about some of the old rules of good writing, especially the one that suggests that we eliminate copulas whenever possible and replace nouns into active verbs.
ReplyDeleteWhat a fascinating concept--I wouldn't have expected the discrepancy between the two surveys to be so large. This is a really thought provoking topic, and one you clearly researched well.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that such a small shift in wording can affect our reaction to a statement so heavily. There's something inherently powerful about phrasing the sentence in such a way that reflects one's identity--the "VERB-er" statements, as you described.
I definitely agree with what others were saying in the comments above. There's a strange weight that comes with describing oneself as something, rather than describing that one does something. I would feel uncomfortable saying "I am a linguist," as it seems almost presumptuous of me, suggesting I know a great deal about linguistics. I wouldn't hesitate, however, to say, "I take linguistics." The slight but important difference here is really intriguing.
A fascinating blog post! One additional subtle point from your post to the ones discussed above that I found particularly interesting was your observation of “how subtle linguistic changes cause shifts in semantic meaning.” I think this is particularly true when trying to determine how positive or negative certain words are within their particular contexts. This summer, I did some sentiment analysis for a retail company I interned with. One of my projects was to use R to analyze how positive or negative the comments from the company’s twitter feed were. One thing I realized is just how difficult this task is to accurately perform algorithmically. For example, if someone says “the new product line is wicked” this is a positive expression even though “wicked” might be on the list of negative words. Subtly complexities of language make having any kind of general rules for determining meaning very difficult.
ReplyDeleteThanks Nathan, for such an intriguing post! I definitely agree that the lexicalized noun-phrase has a more permanent connotation. A VERB-er, in my opinion, is someone who is a professional in the field or someone who does that activity regularly and seriously, not just as a pastime. Even though playing soccer is a passion of mine, I would never call myself a “soccer player;” I simply play soccer.
ReplyDeleteIn the study you talked about, I think it is very possible that when the participants were asked whether they would be voters in the upcoming election, they associated “being a voter” as an important and almost necessary characteristic to have, and that influenced them to respond more positively than in the other survey.
I really enjoyed this post, especially in that it brought in such a relevant and interesting study. I've become used to hearing about how language affects how we think, and I feel that this is another great example of subtleties resulting in significant behavioral differences. The sense of responsibility that comes from tying a verb to a direct descriptor of the self is, as made apparent from the study, truly effective in changing the mindset of the person in question. I wonder in what other ways can language direct a property onto a person to change its perceptual effect, and in how many ways this already takes place in society.
ReplyDeleteThis post provides a really interesting perspective on the way that we think of ourselves. Jonas brings up a good point about being a "soccer player." It is interesting, because photography is a hobby of mine, not just a past time, but something that I am trying to become truly passionate about. However I would certainly consider myself a photographer, not necessarily a good one, but a photographer nonetheless. I guess that because I aspire to become a better photographer and want to identify with being a photographer, that puts me in a position to be a photographer rather than someone who likes to take photos. I had never really thought about it this way. Thanks for the insightful blog post.
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this study, its really interesting. I think what is most unique about it, beyond its political applications, is the insight that linguistic representations for the same exact ideas can carry profoundly different messages. Essentially, the literal difference between "are you going to vote" and "are you a voter" is almost nothing where as the connotations in both of these cases are extremely significant in terms of what kinds of attitudes they engender. So beyond the significance of nouns or adjectives, this tells us that linguistic connotations are probably as important in terms of conveying a message as the literal message is. Perhaps this is not the most earth shattering insight given that this realization is at the crux of speech making and political campaigning but it is worth noting that linguistics itself is about far more than just the verbalization of ideas, its also about the incredibly complex construal of language.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some very interesting points in your post. While the two (a VERB-er and someone who VERBs) mean essentially the same thing from a semantics standpoint, the pragmatics of the two constructions differ greatly. In my experience, “being a VERB-er” implies a level of mastery or continual action that the person considers the action something indicative of himself, while “someone who VERBs” has VERBed in the past but not to a level of mastery or repetition to identify himself with that action. This is shown well in the quitter vs. someone who quits example you gave. Being a quitter is much more shameful than simply quitting something because it implies a continual pattern of quitting that becomes attached to one’s definition of himself. This shows the deep and inherent resonance of this linguistic distinction: even from an elementary-school level, accusations of being a “quitter” hit hard.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis post is absolutely fascinating! To answer the discussion question, I feel uncomfortable when people call me a pianist. I've been playing the piano competitively for the past 15 years, but I don't consider myself a professional piano player. Therefore, I don’t associate myself with being a pianist because simply put, I am not. Playing piano is not my job! (I think there's a huge difference between a VERB-er and doing a VERB when it comes to profession.)
ReplyDeleteMore than anything else, I'm really interested in the difference between “will you vote?" and "will you be a voter?" This shows that, in some sense, people can be manipulated by the way sentences are phrased. Does this mean that linguists can, technically, use their studies to manipulate people on a daily basis? If people choose to vote after they've been asked, "will you be a voter?", are they voting because they really want to, or are they voting because they feel like they have to?
I guess what I want to point out is, is studying this further a moral thing to do? As in, is it moral to manipulate people/results based on how sentences are structured?
This post really explains many of my everyday experiences very well. When encountering freshman self-confidence issues, I find that I remind myself not that "I was admitted to Stanford" but that "I am a student of Stanford university". And similarly, I observe from my mentors on my high school robotics team that one shows greater humility in saying "I work at X company" rather than saying "I am an engineer at X company". The positions and offices of "student", "voter" and "engineer" are significantly more loaded terms than the associated actions of "study", "work" and "vote". In a sense, its repeatedly doing the action that earns us a title, leading to the observation that many have made that a noun suggests much greater constancy through time than the instantaneous verb. Understanding this distinction, then, should help us be more honest with ourselves. Quitting when it's wise (like withdrawing from a class) does not make us quitters, nor does winning once make us winners. It's up to us to be constant in what we want to be and fleeting in what we want to grow away from.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting post. I never considered that certain words imply something about you as a person versus what actions you take. Even though I think this distinction intuitively makes sense an obvious reply is that being a VERBER and being someone who VERBS is a purely linguistic difference that has no difference in meaning. What is interesting about the research you present is that it highlights a subtlety in the distinction in meaning and the way that this distinction affects how people view themselves. I think the negative self-image example you bring up also highlights this distinction further. You mentioned the case of "would you cheat" vs "are you a cheater". In the first case ,it implies that cheating is something that you have done perhaps once. However, in the second case the fact that you cheated once defines your identity in some way. This also explains how the distinction between cheat and cheater can be motivating. Similarly, with positive characteristics we would like the one good action to define our character rather then just be the one time we did something good.
ReplyDeleteI loved this post! Given my interest in marketing this is the type of linguistics research that I'm usually drawn to. I was familiar with marketing use of VERB-er rather than just VERB in order to incite target audiences to do something (e.g. vote). However, I had not heard or ever considered this concept in terms of negative self image, such as the example of cheating, that you mention. Intuitively though, it makes sense. Someone above mentioned being called a quitter in elementary school. Funny as that example may be, it's true. Kids are harsh and insults do fly around, but I recall the VERB-er (quitter) being a common insult in grade school. However, I have not had any experience with kids younger than that using VERB-er verbs as such.
ReplyDeleteSo my question is, at what age do we intrinsically pick up on the power of VERB-er?
Wow. This was interesting - I didn't expect to get such a thought provoking blog post. I never thought about how I identify myself, but this makes so much sense. I guess I do identify as a student/photographer/etc.
ReplyDeleteI think you blew my mind.
VERB-er and to VERB linguistically appear to have the same meaning. However, in everyday speech, one implies an identity while the other refers to an action. This is why VERB-er usage can be such a powerful tool and getting someone to do (or to not do) something. By asking, “will you be a voter,” you are essentially saying that voting, just once, will allow a person to identify with this positive image in our society and be a part of a group viewed as involved and patriotic. Not to mention, declining to vote would then place you into the category of non-voter, which may be perceived negatively. With the “will you vote” phrasing, however, there is not reward for the action or punishment for lack thereof. If you vote or don’t vote, nothing has changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else when I say that this post is really interesting. Your points have never really occurred to me before, but they’re very true. Asking someone if they cheated might cause a response such as, “Yeah I had to for this assignment” or something else that would be admitting it. However, asking someone if they’re a cheater would definitely cause a much more defensive response that would most likely deny the claim. Even though a person who cheated once is technically a cheater, I don’t think this is how we interpret the word “cheater.” I believe this term would be assigned to a person that has cheated multiple times and probably still continues to cheat to this day. Another example would be trading in the stock market. I enjoy trading, but I wouldn’t tell people that I’m a trader. Instead, I’d be more likely to say that I trade. The noun phrase implies that I’m a professional trader and that I do it for a living, while saying that I trade implies that it’s an activity that I partake in. I believe this is the primary difference between being a “verb-er” and a person that “verbs.”
ReplyDeleteThis post and comments are very interesting. I find Raci’s and Tom’s comments especially intriguing. Similarly to what Raci mentioned about figure skating, I tend to say something more along the lines of “I VERB” rather than “I am a VERBER.” For instance, I’ve played the violin for 14 years and the cello for 4, and yet would still be hesitant to call myself a violinist or a cellist; rather, I’d say just what I wrote: “I’ve played the violin for 14 years and the cello for 4.” I’d say “I speak English” much more than I’d say “I am an English-speaker.”
ReplyDeleteAnd, as Tom mentioned, I think it’s interesting to look at this in the context of other languages. For example, there are many instances when I’d use the “I VERB” form in English but the “I am (a) VERBER” form in Spanish, and vice versa.
Great post! This reminded me of what was being talked about at the group event I attended for this class. The speaker described how people react differently when given similar statements but phrased with the past progressive or the simple past. For example, “The person hiked yesterday” and “The person was hiking yesterday” convey the same thing, but caused different results from people when asked to describe the situation with regards to time and what was happening. It’s awesome that there’s so many subtle linguistic cues everywhere that most people don’t even notice but still influence thoughts and actions. Knowing these types of tools is very powerful as well (and a little scary) since people that have mastered these tools can subtly sway conversations to their own advantage by simply restructuring sentences to their liking.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your blog, I consider myself to be a firm VERB-er in most respects. When I am confident of a particular personality trait, I am enthusiastic in asserting myself a student, singer, or writer. Yet, I found myself less apt to identify with aspects of my personality that I am not sure define me yet. For example, while I have a musical theater dance background, I would hesitate to call myself a dancer. Instead, if prompted, I would respond that, “I dance.” Somehow, this change to being one who verbs separates myself from the action, thus protecting my ego if I am deemed to not dance well by a spectator. Then, I am able to simply dance poorly without being a bad dancer, protecting my self-image. Such an interesting blog!
ReplyDelete