Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41117138›Full record

ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2026

Concrete language enhances sharing of social media posts on Twitter, Reddit, and experimentally.

Danyang Hu, Charlie Pilgrim, Weize Zhao, Thomas T Hills

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2026. 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

4 authors.

Danyang HuDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Charlie PilgrimDepartment of Mathematics, University of Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3800-677X
Weize ZhaoDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Thomas T HillsDepartment of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concrete language, which has the property of readily evoking a mental image or sensory experience, has been extensively studied in language and is understood to facilitate processing speed, memory, and understanding. Previous research points to a preference for concreteness. Through a comprehensive approach that combines big-data analysis and experimental methods, we investigate the preference for concreteness in posts from two social media platforms-Twitter and Reddit-and in decisions made by participants in a two-alternative forced-choice experiment. In Study 1, we analysed data from 15 million Twitter posts. The overall results show that posts containing words that are more concrete are more likely to be retweeted. In Study 2, we scraped over 50,000 posts from Reddit across different subreddits and found that more concrete posts tend to have more upvotes (i.e., approval). Both studies also showed consistent effects for words acquired later in life and rated as more arousing. The magnitude of these effects varied across topics. Finally, to demonstrate the causal influence of concreteness, Study 3 is a pre-registered, controlled behavioural experiment where we asked participants to indicate which of two social media posts they would be more likely to share, with both posts constructed from a real post to have either higher or lower concreteness than the original. Participants preferred more-concrete statements, and the difference in concreteness between statements positively predicted choices. Our investigation sheds light on cognitive mechanisms underlying online information sharing and is consistent with an information competition theory, in which more easily processed information is preferred.

Indexed as

Information DisseminationLanguageSocial MediaAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adultconcretenessinformation-sharingpsycholinguisticsupvotes

Identifiers

PMID41117138
PMCPMC13062457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.