Stylistic changes in academic psychology writing were examined in a corpus of 790,520 psychology journal article abstracts published between 1970 and 2016. We anticipated that changing linguistic norms of scientific writing and rising pressures to publish and promote research findings would be evident in increasing levels of personal pronoun use and expressive confidence (“clout”) over the study period. These predictions were tested using indices generated by Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software. Consistent with expectations, personal pronouns (especially first-person plural) became markedly more common over time, as did average levels of clout. Indices of analytical thinking, authenticity, and emotional tone did not show comparable shifts, suggesting that the primary changes are relatively circumscribed. Implications of these changes are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abola, M. V., & Prasad, V. (2016). The use of superlatives in cancer research. JAMA Oncology, 2, 139–141.
Alluqmani, A., & Shamir, L. (2018). Writing styles in different scientific disciplines: A data science approach. Scientometrics, 115, 1071–1085.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). APA Books.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). APA Books.
Boutron, I., Dutton, S., Ravaud, P., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA, 303, 2058–2064.
Cleveland, D. B. (1983). Introduction to indexing and abstracting. Littleton, Colo: Libraries Unlimited.
Duncan, S. Y., Chohan, R., & Ferreira, J. J. (2019). What makes the difference? Employee social media brand engagement. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 34(7), 1459–1467.
Dwan, K., Gamble, C., Williamson, P. R., Kirkham, J. J., & The Reporting Bias Group. (2013). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias: An updated review. PLoS One, 8(7), e66844.
Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e123.
Furnham, A. (2021). Publish or perish: Rejection, scientometrics and academic success. Scientometrics, 126(1), 843–847.
González-Álvarez, J., & Cervera-Crespo, T. (2019). Contemporary psychology and women: A gender analysis of the scientific production. International Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 135–143.
Hartley, J., Pennebaker, J., & Fox, C. (2003). Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style? Scientometrics, 57(3), 389–398.
Haslam, N., Vylomova, E., Murphy, S. C., & Wilson, S. J. (2021). The neuroscientification of psychology: Rising prevalence of neuroscientific concepts in psychology from 1965–2016. Perspectives on Psychological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691621991864
Huang, W., Wang, P., & Wu, Q. (2018). A correlation comparison between Altmetric Attention Scores and citations for six PLOS journals. PLoS One, 13(4), e0194962.
Hundt, M., & Mair, C. (1999). “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4, 221–242.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses, Michigan classics ed.: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2012). Disciplinary identities: Individuality and community in academic discourse. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51.
Kacewicz, E., Pennebaker, J. W., Davis, M., Jeon, M., & Graesser, A. C. (2014). Pronoun use reflects standings in social hierarchies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(2), 125–143.
Miller, G. (1969). Psychology as a means of promoting human welfare. American Psychologist, 24, 1063–1075.
Oliver, K. M., Houchins, J. K., Moore, R. L., & Wang, C. (2021). Informing makerspace outcomes through a linguistic analysis of written and video-recorded project assessments. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 333–354.
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas at Austin.
Pennebaker, J. W., Mehl, M. R., & Niederhoffer, K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547577.
Seoane, E. (2013). On the conventionalisation and loss of pragmatic function of the passive in Late Modern English scientific discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 14(1), 70–99.
Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., et al. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ, 349, g7015.
Swales, J., & Feak, C. B. (2010). From text to task: Putting research on abstracts to work. Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication, 22, 167–180.
Teich, E., & Fankhauser, P. (2010). Exploring a corpus of scientific texts using data mining. Language and Computers, 71, 233–247.
Vaughn, L. A., Vazire, S., & Corker, K. (2019). Distinguishing between need support and regulatory focus with LIWC. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 32.
Vinkers, C. H., Tijdink, J. K., & Otte, W. M. (2015). Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: Retrospective analysis. BMJ, 351, h6467.
Vymolova, E., Murphy, S., & Haslam, N. (2019). Evaluation of semantic change of harm-related concepts in psychology. In Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on computational approaches to historical language change. Association for Computational Linguistics, Pp. 29–34.
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council DP210103984.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Wheeler, M.A., Vylomova, E., McGrath, M.J. et al. More confident, less formal: stylistic changes in academic psychology writing from 1970 to 2016. Scientometrics 126, 9603–9612 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04166-9
- Writing style
- Academic writing
- Psychology abstracts