{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.038485412787088766, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.526315789473684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 1, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
"We" Before "Me": Differences in Usage of Collectivistic and Individualistic Language Influence Judgments of Electability and Performance.

OBJECTIVES
Older adults are often judged to be warm, but not competent, which contradicts their representation in positions of authority. This study sought to extend evidence of age differences in more individualistic (e.g., "I") and collectivistic (e.g., "we") language and explore their impact on judgments of performance and electability.


METHOD
Speeches from young and older adults who campaigned for a fictitious position were analyzed using Linguistic and Inquiry Word Count Software. Words fitting specified categories (e.g., pronouns, affect) were compared to outcome judgments obtained from trained coders on the dimensions of performance and electability.


RESULTS
Older adults used significantly more "we"-language. Young adults used more "I"-language, and more positive affect, achievement, and power language. Language choices and coder judgments were associated such that the more "I"-language that was used during the speech, the less electable the candidate was judged. This relationship was not found for "we"-language.


DISCUSSION
This study found no evidence for collectivistic language enhancing ratings of electability or performance; however an age-invariable, negative relationship was obtained between increased individualistic language and reduced coder judgments of electability. This suggests that speakers should minimize "I"-statements to promote electability; a characteristic that is reflected more in older adults' speeches than young.