The Psychology of Adjectives and Self-Discovery

When you describe yourself as “good” at something, what does that really communicate? When you label a colleague as “nice,” what are you actually saying? These seemingly simple adjectives to describe a person carry far more psychological weight than most people realize. The words we choose to describe ourselves and others are not merely descriptive—they are constitutive, shaping how we perceive identity, form impressions, and construct meaning from human experience.

Most adults comprehend approximately 20,000 to 35,000 English words, yet actively use only 2,000 to 3,000 in daily conversation. This dramatic gap between comprehension and production reveals a fundamental challenge in vocabulary acquisition and deployment. But the implications extend far beyond linguistics: the adjectives we choose—or fail to choose—profoundly influence our self-concept, interpersonal relationships, and the narratives we construct about our lives.

The Cognitive Architecture of Adjective Processing

Working Memory Constraints and Vocabulary Deployment

The asymmetry between passive vocabulary (words understood) and active vocabulary (words used) has long puzzled language researchers. While most educated speakers recognize sophisticated adjectives such as “perspicacious,” “magnanimous,” or “idiosyncratic,” these words rarely appear in their spontaneous speech. This discrepancy cannot be explained by comprehension failure alone; rather, it reflects fundamental constraints on cognitive processing during language production. The multicomponent model of working memory proposed by Baddeley (1992) provides the theoretical framework necessary for understanding this phenomenon. Working memory—the cognitive system that temporarily stores and manipulates information—operates through several specialized subsystems: the central executive coordinates attentional resources, the phonological loop maintains verbal information, and the visuospatial sketchpad processes visual-spatial data. Critically, working memory operates under severe capacity constraints, holding only a few items simultaneously and requiring continuous rehearsal to prevent information decay. These limitations have profound implications for vocabulary use during spontaneous discourse.

When speakers select adjectives to describe persons or situations, they must simultaneously retrieve appropriate candidates from long-term memory, evaluate their contextual appropriateness, consider their semantic implications, and integrate them into ongoing utterances—all while maintaining conversational flow. This parallel processing demands substantial cognitive resources from the central executive. Recent psycholinguistic research demonstrates that word frequency profoundly influences processing during language production. Rühlemann and Barthel (2024) used corpus linguistic methods combined with pupillometry to examine the relationship between word frequency and cognitive effort during natural conversation. Their findings reveal a striking pattern: speakers strategically distribute word frequencies within turns-at-talk, placing highly frequent words in turn-initial positions and low-frequency words in turn-final positions. Notably, pupil size—a physiological marker of cognitive effort—increased systematically as word frequency decreased within speakers’ turns, indicating that accessing and producing low-frequency words imposes substantially greater cognitive demands. This pattern demonstrates that speakers, whether consciously or not, structure their utterances to manage the processing load imposed by word frequency, a clear indication that vocabulary selection is constrained by working memory capacity.

The distinction between passive and active vocabulary reveals why comprehension does not automatically translate into production ability. When encountering unfamiliar adjectives in reading or listening, comprehension can proceed at a measured pace, with the receiver free to slow processing or seek contextual clues. Language production, by contrast, must occur at conversational speed, leaving no opportunity for deliberate searching through memory or contextual problem-solving. Laufer (1998) demonstrated that passive vocabulary substantially exceeds active vocabulary in most speakers, with the gap widening particularly for low-frequency, semantically specialized terms. In production contexts, the working memory demands of real-time formulation create an effective bottleneck: speakers resort to high-frequency alternatives precisely because these words can be retrieved and deployed with minimal cognitive effort. Words like “perspicacious”—understood by educated speakers—remain largely inaccessible during spontaneous speech because their retrieval would impose unacceptable processing costs at moments when the speaker must simultaneously manage discourse planning, syntactic formulation, and phonological encoding.

The accessibility of complex adjectives in production depends critically on the strength of their mental representations and the ease with which they can be retrieved. Frequency of use and deliberate practice strengthen these representations, reducing retrieval latency and working memory demands. Without such practice, sophisticated vocabulary remains confined to comprehension—available for understanding yet inaccessible for spontaneous production. The explanation for this asymmetry thus lies not in any fundamental difference in learning capacity between speakers, but in the cognitive constraints that govern real-time language production. High-frequency, semantically transparent vocabulary becomes the default choice during spontaneous discourse precisely because it minimizes the central executive’s burden. Only through repeated activation and practice can complex adjectives achieve the automatic retrieval status necessary for fluent, unplanned speech. Understanding this mechanism—that vocabulary accessibility depends on working memory efficiency—explains why precise, sophisticated adjectives describing persons remain underutilized despite comprehension, and clarifies the cognitive processes that shape everyday language use.

The Halo Effect and Holistic Impression Formation

The halo effect refers to a cognitive bias in which an individual’s judgment of a person’s overall character is disproportionately influenced by a single salient trait. First identified by Thorndike (1920), this phenomenon has been extensively documented in social perception research. Empirical evidence demonstrates that when a target person is initially described with positive adjectives—such as “competent,” “warm,” or “trustworthy”—observers tend to generalize these favorable impressions to unrelated domains, including moral character, intelligence, and leadership potential (Asch, 1946; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). This pattern of holistic impression formation reveals how individuals construct integrated personality representations by inferring a cohesive personality structure from minimal linguistic cues.

A central mechanism behind this bias is affect-driven inference. Positive descriptors evoke favorable affective responses, which subsequently function as cognitive anchors shaping downstream judgments. The Affect Heuristic framework, which emphasizes how overall emotional valence guides judgment and decision-making (Slovic, Finucane, Peters, & MacGregor, 2007), illuminates this process. Linguistic framing plays a particularly decisive role in triggering these affective responses. Adjectives such as “responsible,” “disciplined,” or “empathetic” do not merely denote specific traits but activate associated semantic and conceptual networks. Drawing from Osgood’s Semantic Differential framework (Osgood, 1969), trait descriptors carry evaluative connotations along dimensions of evaluation and potency that activate broader conceptual associations related to reliability, prosociality, and competence. Consequently, such descriptors systematically bias observers toward forming globally positive interpretations, even when concrete behavioral information is absent.

Recent evidence further substantiates the role of trait descriptors in impression formation. Research on implicit personality theory and trait structure (Rosenberg, Nelson, & Vivekananthan, 1968) demonstrates that people organize personality traits into coherent conceptual clusters, where positive traits tend to cluster together. When observers encounter a single positive trait descriptor, they activate the entire associative cluster, leading to pronounced halo effects across semantically distinct dimensions. Furthermore, the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), which identifies warmth and competence as fundamental dimensions of social judgment, shows how trait-based framing systematically shapes perceptions along these core evaluative dimensions. Together, these findings underscore that verbal descriptors—especially evaluative adjectives—function as powerful perceptual anchors that trigger holistic impression formation through both affective and semantic pathways.

Together, this body of evidence demonstrates that adjective-driven framing operates as a fundamental mechanism through which the halo effect shapes person perception. By activating emotional responses and conceptual associations, evaluative language guides observers toward constructing globally favorable impressions anchored to a single positive trait, particularly under conditions of ambiguity or limited behavioral information. This process illustrates a core principle of social cognition: linguistic representation does not simply describe pre-existing judgments but actively constructs the mental models through which people understand and evaluate others.

Narrative Identity: How Adjectives Construct the Self

McAdams’ Life Story Framework

McAdams’ narrative identity theory proposes that we build a coherent sense of self by weaving together our past experiences, present circumstances, and future aspirations into a meaningful life story. This integrative narrative process anchors our identity through continuity and coherence, creating psychological resilience as we organize disparate life events into a comprehensible autobiographical narrative (McAdams, 1995, 2001, 2011; Adler et al., 2015).

Understanding narrative identity requires recognizing that our life story is far more than a simple chronicle of events. Instead, it is a carefully constructed narrative centered on two fundamental human motivations: agency—our drive toward achievement and autonomy—and communion—our desire for connection and belonging. These motivational themes shape how we construct meaning from our experiences and give our lives direction and purpose (McAdams, 2011; Lilgendahl & McAdams, 2011). Research using open-ended self-descriptions and narrative interviews reveals something significant: the adjectives people choose to describe themselves—whether agency-oriented terms like “decisive” or “ambitious,” or communion-oriented descriptors like “loyal” or “empathetic”—consistently reflect these underlying motivational priorities. The prevalence of these identity-relevant adjectives in personal narratives directly corresponds to the prominence of the corresponding themes within an individual’s broader life story (McAdams, 2011; Lilgendahl & McAdams, 2011; Chung & Pennebaker, 2008).

Beyond these core motivational themes, narrative research has identified specific patterns that shape psychological well-being over time. Individuals whose life stories emphasize agentic themes—especially those that integrate redemptive meaning (finding growth through adversity)—consistently report higher levels of psychological well-being (Adler et al., 2015; Lilgendahl & McAdams, 2011). Conversely, narratives dominated by what researchers term “contamination themes”—in which loss and harm persist without recovery or resolution—predict poorer psychological outcomes. Linguistic analysis of self-descriptions strengthens this pattern: the repeated use of specific adjectives corresponds reliably with individual differences in agency and communion, and these linguistic markers show measurable associations with subjective well-being (Chung & Pennebaker, 2008).

The convergence of this evidence suggests an important possibility within McAdams’ framework: the words we habitually choose to describe ourselves may not merely reflect our identity—they could actively reinforce the core narrative themes that influence our long-term psychological health. The psychological mechanisms underlying this relationship likely include cognitive reinforcement of self-concept, behavioral confirmation effects (our tendency to act in ways consistent with how we describe ourselves), and social feedback loops created when others respond to our self-descriptions. While the direction of causality between linguistic patterns and narrative themes remains to be fully clarified, the evidence strongly suggests that attending to how we talk about ourselves may offer a meaningful pathway to understanding and potentially supporting psychological well-being over time.

Linguistic Relativity and Thought

Language has long captured the attention of philosophers and cognitive scientists seeking to understand its fundamental role in shaping human thought and experience. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf pioneered this inquiry in the early twentieth century, investigating how the structure of a language constrains how its speakers perceive and conceptualize reality. Sapir’s foundational work, “The Status of Linguistics as a Science” (1929), established that linguistic categories are not mere passive labels but active frames through which speakers engage with the world. Although their ideas generated considerable excitement initially, early scholarship on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis faced a critical limitation: insufficient empirical evidence. By the 1970s, many scientists had abandoned the hypothesis in favor of universalist theories claiming language and thought are fundamentally identical across cultures. However, contemporary research has vindicated a more nuanced perspective. As Boroditsky (2011) synthesizes: “decades later, a solid body of empirical evidence showing how languages shape thinking has finally emerged.” While contemporary scholarship has rejected the strongest form of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis—which claimed language wholly determines cognition—recent empirical work demonstrates that language systematically influences cognition in measurable, context-specific ways.

Research across multiple cognitive dimensions now documents how linguistic patterns guide perception and thought. Boroditsky’s (2011) comprehensive review reveals that language shapes even fundamental aspects of human experience: speakers of languages using absolute directions (north, south, east, west) demonstrate superior spatial navigation abilities; languages encoding different temporal sequences influence how speakers mentally arrange time; and linguistic conventions for describing causality alter how people remember events and attribute agency. Teaching people new linguistic categories—whether color words or temporal constructions—demonstrably changes their cognitive abilities, establishing that language plays a causal rather than merely correlational role in shaping thought. These findings illustrate a broader principle: the grammatical and lexical patterns of a language subtly yet systematically guide which features of experience individuals notice, what distinctions they naturally draw, and how they construct conceptual frameworks for understanding themselves and their world.

This principle of linguistic influence yields a testable prediction regarding personality perception. If language shapes cognition across multiple psychological dimensions, then individual differences in personality vocabulary should measurably influence how people recognize and articulate distinctions in character and disposition. English possesses an extensive lexical inventory for personality description—a resource systematically documented by Allport and Odbert (1936), whose landmark psycholexical study identified 4,504 trait-descriptive adjectives from Webster’s unabridged dictionary, demonstrating the remarkable depth of linguistic resources theoretically available for nuanced personality characterization. Yet most speakers actively employ only a small fraction of this vocabulary. This discrepancy raises an important question: if linguistic resources genuinely shape perceptual sensitivity, does limited everyday usage of personality vocabulary produce measurable psychological consequences?

Recent research on natural language provides direct evidence. Chung and Pennebaker (2008) developed an automated method for extracting meaning from open-ended self-descriptions and demonstrated that the dimensions along which people think about themselves are reflected in the linguistic choices they make when describing themselves. Individuals who employ more varied and precise vocabulary in self-descriptions provide richer and more differentiated accounts of their own characteristics, suggesting that vocabulary precision directly facilitates psychological insight. By extension, individuals with a restricted active personality vocabulary may struggle to perceive or articulate the subtle distinctions in characteristic behaviors and dispositions that richer linguistic resources would render salient.

Affective science provides empirical support for this principle. In a foundational study, Barrett and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that individuals with more differentiated emotional experience—those capable of spontaneously distinguishing among closely related emotional states—exhibit stronger capacity for emotion regulation. The robustness of these findings—evident across diverse cultural contexts and multiple methodological approaches—suggests that linguistic and conceptual precision facilitates psychological self-management. Building on this foundation, Kashdan, Barrett, and McKnight (2015) articulate the broader mechanism: when individuals possess richer conceptual vocabularies for psychological experience, they can more effectively perceive subtle differences, evaluate complex experiences, and select appropriate responses. This principle extends beyond emotion to personality understanding more broadly: richer personality vocabularies should similarly enable finer perception of behavioral nuances and more adaptive psychological functioning.

The mechanisms linking vocabulary differentiation to psychological capability operate across multiple dimensions. Linguistic and conceptual precision—whether in emotion or personality—enables individuals to transform undifferentiated experience into articulated distinctions. As Gentner and Goldin-Meadow (2003) synthesize in their comprehensive review of language and thought: language provides a toolkit for cognitive representation that makes previously invisible distinctions psychologically available. Rather than language merely labeling pre-existing psychological categories, linguistic precision actively constructs the conceptual apparatus through which people perceive and manage their psychological lives.

The same principle applies to personality self-understanding. The ability to distinguish, for instance, between being “reserved” and being “shy,” or between “cautious” and “fearful,” reflects and fosters more nuanced understanding of personality and psychological differences. This linguistic capacity is linked to metacognitive awareness—the ability to objectively observe and accurately describe one’s own mental processes and enduring characteristics. People who deploy varied and precise personality vocabulary access deeper self-awareness; they do not simply describe themselves differently but engage in richer self-reflection with greater psychological granularity. From this perspective, personality-describing adjectives function not as passive labels for psychological categories but as cognitive instruments that facilitate insight, guide self-reflection, and deepen the texture of self-knowledge. In effect, personality vocabulary serves as a vehicle through which individuals construct and refine their understanding of themselves.

The Self-Concept: Identity Through Descriptors

Cognitive Representations of the Self

Social cognition research conceptualizes the self-concept as a knowledge structure—an organized, hierarchical system of beliefs about one’s characteristics, abilities, values, and social roles (Markus & Wurf, 1987). This cognitive representation functions through self-schemas: cognitive generalizations about the self derived from past experience that guide information processing related to the self.

Self-schemas operate through selective attention and memory biases. When individuals possess well-developed self-schemas for particular traits—viewing themselves as strongly identified with “creative,” “analytical,” or “empathetic” qualities—they process schema-consistent information more efficiently, recall schema-consistent events more readily, and resist schema-inconsistent feedback more strongly (Markus, 1977). The adjectives we repeatedly use to describe ourselves solidify into these cognitive structures, functioning as filters through which we interpret experience.

Self-schemas are not static constructs but evolve across contexts and developmental periods. Analyzing open-ended self-descriptions using automated textual analysis, Chung and Pennebaker (2008) found that individuals organize self-concepts around multiple dimensions: physical appearance, intellectual qualities, social relationships, emotional dispositions, and moral values. The adjectives people spontaneously produce when describing themselves cluster within these categorical domains. High-frequency adjectives appear to reflect chronically accessible self-schemas—the personality dimensions most central to identity.

Factor analysis of these self-descriptions revealed systematic clustering patterns. Certain adjectives co-occur systematically: individuals describing themselves as “outgoing” are significantly more likely to also use “friendly,” “energetic,” and “talkative.” This reflects an underlying Sociability dimension in self-concept. Conversely, adjectives such as “thoughtful,” “analytical,” “curious,” and “philosophical” formed a distinct cluster, reflecting a coherent Intellect/Reflection dimension (Chung & Pennebaker, 2008).

These findings suggest that adjectives used to describe oneself function not merely as isolated descriptors but as nodes in associative networks. Activating one adjective (“I am creative”) primes related concepts (“imaginative,” “innovative,” “unconventional”), reinforcing a broader identity narrative. Over time, these patterns tend to become self-fulfilling. Individuals adjust their behavior to align with their self-schemas, preferentially notice confirming evidence, and actively seek out situations that reinforce their self-descriptions (Swann & Read, 1981).

The Social Feedback Loop

Building on Charles Horton Cooley’s (1902) concept of the “looking-glass self” and George Herbert Mead’s (1934) symbolic interactionist framework, self-concept development emerges as a fundamentally social process rather than an internal, autonomous one. Rather than viewing selfhood as something we discover within ourselves, these foundational theorists argued that we construct our self-understanding primarily through reflected appraisals—our perception of how others view us. Specifically, the adjectives that significant others ascribe to us tend to become internalized as self-descriptors, particularly when these characterizations come from emotionally salient relationships or appear consistently across multiple social contexts (Cooley, 1902).

This process reveals a subtle yet powerful feedback mechanism. When individuals habitually adopt agency-focused self-descriptors—‘ambitious,’ ‘determined,’ ‘independent’—they inadvertently signal to others specific expectations for how they should be engaged. Research on expectancy effects (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968) and stereotype confirmation (Darley & Fazio, 1980) suggests that once others form impressions based on these self-presentations, they tend to act in ways that confirm those initial judgments. In practical terms, individuals who consistently describe themselves this way often receive more challenging project assignments, are granted greater autonomous decision-making authority, and face evaluation standards oriented toward achievement and results. These behavioral confirmations, in turn, reinforce and consolidate the original self-conception, creating what amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy operating at the interpersonal level.

However, this feedback loop is not automatic or universal. The mechanism’s strength depends on several moderating factors. First, the perceived credibility and emotional significance of the evaluator substantially influences whether external labels become internalized: characterizations from high-status or emotionally important others (parents, mentors, respected colleagues) carry greater weight than those from peripheral social contacts (Cooley, 1902). Second, consistency matters—labels applied repeatedly and uniformly across different social contexts are more likely to crystallize into stable self-conceptions than sporadic or context-specific characterizations. Third, individual differences in self-concept clarity, resilience to external feedback, and social comparison orientation create meaningful variation in susceptibility to this mechanism (Festinger, 1954). Additionally, cultural contexts emphasizing individual autonomy over social conformity may partially insulate individuals against wholesale internalization of externally imposed descriptors.

The internalization of externally attributed adjectives should thus be understood not as a passive process of absorption but as an active one of interpretation. As we experience confirmatory behavioral responses from others, we engage in what social psychologists term “confirmatory bias in self-perception”—actively interpreting these responses through the lens of our existing self-conception and integrating them as additional evidence supporting that identity (Snyder & Swann, 1978). This interpretive dimension completes the feedback loop: self-conception drives behavior, behavior elicits social response, and social response is then reinterpreted through the framework of self-conception. Over time, particularly consolidated self-concepts become increasingly resistant to disconfirming information, capable of generating their own perpetuation semi-independently of external validation.

Practical Applications: Adjective Selection as Self-Discovery Tool

Moving Beyond Generic Descriptors

The psychological research reviewed here suggests a practical imperative: deliberately expanding one’s adjective vocabulary for self and interpersonal description constitutes a genuine form of psychological development. When individuals move beyond generic terms (“good,” “nice,” “smart”) to more precise descriptors (“conscientious,” “magnanimous,” “perceptive”), they achieve several benefits:

1. Enhanced Self-Awareness: Precise adjectives force discrimination among subtly different psychological states. Distinguishing “anxious” from “apprehensive” from “vigilant” requires careful introspection about the intensity, duration, and focus of one’s concern. This metacognitive process deepens self-knowledge.

2. Improved Interpersonal Communication: Specific adjectives reduce ambiguity in social communication. Describing a colleague as “diplomatic” rather than “nice” conveys particular information about their conflict resolution style, politeness conventions, and strategic social awareness—nuances lost in generic positive descriptors.

3. Identity Clarity: Research on narrative identity and self-concept coherence demonstrates that individuals who articulate more differentiated self-descriptions report greater life satisfaction, clearer sense of purpose, and stronger identity commitment.

Strategic Adjective Deployment in Professional Contexts

The halo effect research has immediate implications for contexts where impression management matters: job applications, performance evaluations, professional networking, and online personal branding. The strategic substitution of generic adjectives with precise, contextually appropriate alternatives can substantially alter perceived competence and suitability.

Consider recommendation letters or performance reviews. A description of an employee as “hardworking” conveys effort but leaves competence ambiguous. Contrast this with adjectives like “meticulous,” “strategic,” “innovative,” or “resourceful”—each implying not just effort but specific cognitive and behavioral competencies. Given halo effects, these precise descriptors unconsciously elevate assessments of unrelated qualities.

Similarly, in personal branding (LinkedIn profiles, professional biographies, self-introductions), adjective choice signals identity narratives. Describing oneself as “detail-oriented” versus “thorough,” “passionate” versus “committed,” or “creative” versus “innovative” activates different associative networks in observers’ minds, shaping expectations about work style, cultural fit, and professional potential.

Conclusion: Language as Psychological Architecture

The psychology of adjectives to describe a person reveals that vocabulary is not merely decorative embellishment but constitutive architecture. The specific words we use to describe ourselves and others structure perception, solidify into identity narratives, and shape the trajectory of psychological development. Cognitive constraints stemming from working memory limitations, perceptual biases like the halo effect, and the narrative structuring of identity all converge to make adjective selection a psychologically consequential act.

Moving forward, individuals seeking authentic self-discovery and enhanced interpersonal effectiveness would benefit from expanding their active adjective vocabulary—not through rote memorization, but through deliberate practice in contexts where precise language matters. Tools that facilitate adjective discovery, provide contextual examples of sophisticated descriptors, and enhance writing through targeted vocabulary suggestions serve a genuine psychological function: they scaffold the cognitive work of self-reflection and interpersonal understanding.

The 20,000-to-2,000 word vocabulary gap is not merely a linguistic curiosity—it represents unexplored potential for psychological growth. By closing that gap, particularly for adjectives to describe personality and character, individuals gain access to more nuanced self-awareness, construct more coherent identity narratives, and communicate with greater precision and impact. In this sense, vocabulary development is psychological development: each new adjective mastered and deployed represents an expansion of the self’s capacity for meaning-making, authentic expression, and reflective understanding.

Practical Tools for Adjective Discovery

Understanding the psychology is one thing. Putting it into practice requires access to vocabulary.

Our platform provides three tools to help:

• AI Adjective Recommender: Describe yourself or someone else, and get personalized suggestions.
• AI Example Generator: See how adjectives are used in real contexts.
• AI Writing Enhancer: Improve your writing by replacing weak adjectives.

But we also recognize that psychological research alone doesn’t capture the full picture of human complexity.

See Also

• Beyond Personality Types: Explore why adjectives complement.
• Data Accuracy Update: Learn about scientific rigor.
• Learn Adjectives & Self-Discovery: Understand the vision.

References

Adler, J. M., Turner, A. F., Brookshier, K. M., Monahan, C., Walder-Biesanz, I., Harmeling, L. H., Albaugh, M., McAdams, D. P., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2015). Variation in narrative identity is associated with trajectories of mental health over several years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038601 

Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360 

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756 

Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1736359 

Barrett, L. F., Gross, J., Christensen, T. C., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15(6), 713–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930143000239 

Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0211-62 

Chung, C. K., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: An automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 96–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.04.006 

Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1902-10302-000 

Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35(10), 867–881. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867 

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202 

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 

Gentner, D., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (Eds.). (2003). Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Boston Review. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4117.001.0001 

Kashdan, T. B., Barrett, L. F., & McKnight, P. E. (2015). Unpacking emotion differentiation: Transforming unpleasant experience by perceiving distinctions in negativity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414550708 

Laufer, B. (1998). The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: Same or different? Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 255-271. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.255 

Lilgendahl, J. P., & McAdams, D. P. (2011). Constructing stories of self‐growth: How individual differences in patterns of autobiographical reasoning relate to well‐being in midlife. Journal of Personality, 79(2), 391–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00688.x 

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63 

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.001503 

McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63(3), 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x 

McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.2.100 

McAdams, D. P. (2011). Narrative identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 99–115). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_5 

Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1934-15037-000 

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250 

Osgood, C. E. (1969). On the whys and wherefores of E, P, and A. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(3), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027715 

Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. S. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(4), 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026086 

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-00042-000 

Rühlemann, C., & Barthel, M. (2024). Word frequency and cognitive effort in turns-at-talk: turn structure affects processing load in natural conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1208029. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1208029 

Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science. Language, 5(4), 207-214. https://doi.org/10.2307/409588 

Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006 

Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(2), 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90021-5 

Swann, W. B., & Read, S. J. (1981). Self-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(4), 351–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90043-3 

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663 

Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). MIT Press.