{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013888888888888888, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001984126984126984, 'mean_word_length': 5.682119205298013, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 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}}
Linguistic nonimmediacy and self-presentation.

It has been previously shown that Ss accurately infer communicators' levels of negative effect on the basis of communicators' levels of linguistic nonimmediacy (the degree of verbal indirectness with which a communicator refers to himself or to that about which he communicates). It was hypothesized that Ss would also rely on communicators' levels of linguistic nonimmediacy for impression formation, specifically that Ss would perceive communicators using lower levels of linguistic nonimmediacy as more authoritative and as having a more positive character than communicators using higher levels of linguistic nonimmediacy. The hypothesis was partially confirmed in a study of 12 college students who rated samples of student speeches by means of McCroskey's impression formation instrument for public speakers. The results were discussed in terms of the role of language in self-presentation and the role of interpretative procedures in social interaction.