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

• Authors: Dalibor Kučera , Jana M. Havigerová
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

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

Keywords

EN

psycholinguistics; computational; analysis; assessment; psychodiagnostics; Czech

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Pedagogy
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 6
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 61-72

Dates

published

2015-06-01

online

2015-07-24

Contributors

author

Dalibor Kučera

• University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice Faculty of Education Department of Pedagogy and Psychology Jeronýmova 10 371 15 České Budějovice Czech Republic

author

Jana M. Havigerová

• University of Hradec Králové Faculty of Education Department of Primary and Preprimary Education Náměstí svobody 301 500 03 Hradec Králové Czech Republic

References

• 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 http://is.muni.cz/th/75552/ff_m 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

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/jped-2015-0004