Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39779751›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The persuasive role of generic-you in online interactions.

Minxue Niu, Emily Mower Provost, David Jurgens, Susan A Gelman, Ethan Kross, Ariana Orvell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Minxue NiuDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. sandymn@umich.edu.
Emily Mower ProvostDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
David JurgensDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Susan A GelmanDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ethan KrossDepartment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Ariana OrvellDepartment of Psychology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, PA, USA. aorvell@brynmawr.edu.

Funding

NSF RI-2006618
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Persuasion plays a crucial role in human communication. Yet, convincing someone to change their mind is often challenging. Here, we demonstrate that a subtle linguistic device, generic-you (i.e., "you" that refers to people in general, e.g., "You win some, you lose some"), is associated with successfully shifting people's pre-existing views in a naturalistic context. Leveraging Large Language Models, we conducted a preregistered study using a large ([Formula: see text] = 204,120) online debate dataset. Every use of generic-you in an argument was associated with an up to 14% percent increase in the odds of successful persuasion. These findings underscore the need to distinguish between the specific and generic uses of "you" in large-scale linguistic analyses, an aspect that has been overlooked in the literature. The robust association between generic-you and persuasion persisted with the inclusion of various covariates, and above and beyond other pronouns (i.e., specific-you, I or we). However, these findings do not imply causality. In Supplementary Experiment 2, arguments with generic-you (vs. first-person singular pronouns, e.g., I) were rated as more persuasive by open-minded individuals. In Supplementary Experiment 3, generic-you (vs. specific-you) arguments did not differentially predict attitude change. We discuss explanations for these results, including differential mechanisms, boundary conditions, and the possibility that people intuitively draw on generic-you when expressing more persuasive ideas. Together, these findings add to a growing literature on the interpersonal implications of broadening one's perspective via a subtle shift in language, while motivating future research on contextual and individual differences that may moderate these effects.

Indexed as

Persuasive CommunicationCommunicationFemaleHumansInternetLanguageLinguisticsMaleGeneric-youPersuasionPronouns

Identifiers

PMID39779751
PMCPMC11711669

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.