Computational psycholinguistic analysis and its application in psychological assessment of college students

Open access


The paper deals with the issue of computational psycholinguistic analysis (CPA) and its experimental application in basic psychological and pedagogical assessment. CPA is a new method which may potentially provide interesting, psychologically relevant information about the author of a particular text, regardless of the text’s factual (semantic) content and without the need to obtain additional materials. As part of our QPA-FPT research we studied the link between the linguistic form of a text by Czech college students and their personality characteristics obtained from a psychodiagnostic test battery. The article also discusses the basis of the method, opportunities for practical application and potential use within psychological and pedagogical disciplines

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aaronson D. & Rieber R. W. (2013). Psycholinguistic research: Implications and applications. Hove: Psychology Press. pp. IX-X.

  • Austin J.L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Campbell R.S. & Pennebaker J.W. (2003). The secret life of pronouns: Flexibility in writing style and physical health. Psychological Science 14(1) 60-65.

  • Cegala D. (1989). A study of selected linguistic components of involvement in interaction. West. J. Speech Communication 53(3) 311-326.

  • Cloninger C.R. (2008). The Psychobiological theory of temperament and character: Comment on Farmer and Goldberg. Psychological Assessment 20(3) 292-299.

  • Figurová L.T. (2007). Sociální desirabilita (Master’s Thesis). Masarykova univerzita Filozofická fakulta. Available from Freud S. (1901). Psychopathology of everyday life. New York: Basic Books.

  • Furnham A. (1990). Language and personality. In H. Giles & W.H. Robinson (Eds.) Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp 73-95) New York: Wiley.

  • Garside R. & Smith N. (1997). A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In R. Garside G. Leech & A. McEnery (Eds.) Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora (pp.102-121). Longman London.

  • Hajič J. (2004). Disambiguation of rich inflection (Comput. Morphology of Czech). Prague: Karolinum.

  • Hamilton R.V. (1957). A Psycholinguistic analysis of some interpretive processes of three basic personality types. The Journal of Social Psychology 46(2) 153-177.

  • Hornová L. (2003). Referenční slovník gramatických termínů. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci.

  • Cheng K.H.C. (2011). Further linguistic markers of personality: The way we say things matters. International Journal of Psychological Studies 3(1) 2-16.

  • Krippendorff K. (1980). Content analysis: An Introduction to its methodology. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

  • Mehl M.R. (2006). Quantitative text analysis. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.) Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 141-156). Washington: American Psychological Association.

  • Müllner J. Ruisel I. & Farkaš G. (1980). Príručka pre administráciu interpretáciu a vyhodnocovanie dotazníka na meranie úzkosti a úzkostlivosti. Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didaktické testy.

  • Nebeská I. (1992). Úvod do psycholingvistiky. Praha: H&H.

  • Oxman T. E. Rosenberg S. D. Schnurr P. P. & Tucker G. J. (1988). Diagnostic classification through content analysis of patients‘ speech. American Journal of Psychiatry 145(4) 464-468.

  • Paulhus D.L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self- -reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual University of British Columbia Vancouver Canada.

  • Pennebaker J.W. & Graybeal A. (2001). Patterns of natural language use: Disclosure personality and social integration. Current Directions 10 (3) 90-93.

  • Pennebaker J.W. & Davis M. (2006). Pronoun use and dominance. Unpublished data. Department of Psychology University of Texas at Austin Austin TX.

  • Pennebaker J.W. & King L.A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77(6) 1296-1312.

  • Pennebaker J.W. Mehl M.R. & Niederhoffer K. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words our selves. Annual Review of Psychology 54(1) 547-577.

  • Petkevič V. (2006). Reliable morphological disambiguation of Czech: Rule-Based approach is necessary. In M. Šimková (Ed.) Insight into the Slovak and Czech Corpus Linguistics (pp. 26-44) Bratislava: Veda.

  • Preiss M. Novák T. Klose J. Šamánková D. Březinová K. & Štěpánková H. (2006). Ovlivňování výsledku vyšetření osobnosti: Výsledky dotazníku temperamentu a charakteru. Československá psychologie 50(3) 251-261.

  • Rude S.S. Gortner E.M. & Pennebaker J.W. (2004). Language use of depressed and depression - vulnerable college students. Cognition and Emotion 18(8) 1121-1133.

  • Sanford F.H. (1942). Speech and personality. Psychological Bulletin 39(10) 811-845.

  • Searle J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Shapiro G. & Markoff J. (1997). A Matter of definition. In C. W. Roberts (Ed.) Text analysis for the social sciences: Methods for drawing statistical inferences from texts and transcripts. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.

  • Scherer K. R. & Giles H. (1979). Social markers in speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Schnurr P.P. Rosenberg S.D. Oxman T.E. & Tucker G.J. (1986). A methodological note on content analysis: Estimates of reliability. Journal of Personality Assessment 5(4) 601-609.

  • Spielberger C.D. Gorsuch R.L. & Lushene R.E. (1970). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto (CA): Consulting Psychologist Press.

  • Spoustová D. (2008). Combining statistical and rule-based approaches to morphological tagging of Czech texts. In: Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 89 23-40.

  • Taylor M.A. Reed R. & Berenbaum S. (1994). Patterns of speech disorders in schizophrenia and mania. Journal of Nerv. and Mental Disease 182(6) 319-326.

  • Thomas C.B. & Duszynski K.R. (1985). Are words of the ROR predictors of disease and death? The case of “whirling.” Psychosomatic Medicine 47 201-211.

  • Votrubec J. (2006). Morphological tagging based on averaged perceptron. Praha: WDS’06 Proceedings of Contributed Papers pp. 191-195.

  • Weintraub W. (1989). Verbal behavior in everyday life. New York: Springer

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.126
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.266

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 270 113 4
PDF Downloads 173 93 7