/docs/psychology/writing/ Directory Listing



  • 1903-london.pdf: “Getting Into Print”⁠, Jack London (backlinks)

  • 1949-benchley-howtogetthingsdone.txt

  • 1953-taylor.pdf: ⁠, Wilson L. Taylor (1953-09-01):

    Here is the first comprehensive statement of a research method and its theory which were introduced briefly during a workshop at the 1953 AEJ convention. Included are findings from three pilot studies and two experiments in which “cloze procedure” results are compared with those of two readability formulas.

    “Cloze Procedure” involves no formula or “element counting,” but consists of sampling all potential readability influences. Although similar to sentence-completion tests, the cloze method demands deletion of random words from a passage. After administration to a group the correctly identified omissions are tallied. Experimental results show: (1) the cloze method consistently ranked three selected passages in the same way as the Flesch and Dale-Chall formulas; (2) the method was reliable; (3) the cloze method seemed to handle specialized passages more adequately than other methods; (4) the same rankings of readability were obtained when words were deleted at random or every nth word; (5) the cloze procedure could be used for comparing reading abilities of different individuals.

  • 1970-vernon-creativity.pdf (backlinks)

  • 1974-stein-stimulatingcreativity-v1individualprocedures.pdf (backlinks)

  • 1980-hartley-thepsychologyofwrittencommunication.pdf (backlinks)

  • 1981-bullough.pdf

  • 1981-lowenthal.pdf: “Academics and Their Writing [abridged]”⁠, David Lowenthal, Peter C. Wason (backlinks)

  • 1982-oates.pdf: “Notes on Failure”⁠, Joyce Carol Oates

  • 1984-boice.pdf: “Perception and practice of writing for publication by faculty at a doctoral-granting university” (backlinks)

  • 1984-hartley.pdf: “151_1.tif”⁠, liujie (backlinks)

  • 1986-kellogg.pdf: “Writing method and productivity of science and engineering faculty” (backlinks)

  • 1989-hartley.pdf: “The psychologist as wordsmith: a questionnaire study of the writing strategies of productive British psychologists”⁠, James Hartley, Alan Branthwaite (backlinks)

  • 1990-parisreview-irismurdochinterview.html (backlinks)

  • 1993-ericsson.pdf: ⁠, K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf T. Krampe, Clemens Tesch-Römer (1993-07; backlinks):

    The theoretical framework presented in this article explains expert performance as the end result of individuals’ prolonged efforts to improve performance while negotiating motivational and external constraints. In most domains of expertise, individuals begin in their childhood a regimen of effortful activities (deliberate practice) designed to optimize improvement. Individual differences, even among elite performers, are closely related to assessed amounts of deliberate practice. Many characteristics once believed to reflect innate talent are actually the result of intense practice extended for a minimum of 10 yrs. Analysis of expert performance provides unique evidence on the potential and limits of extreme environmental adaptation and learning.

  • 1997-boice.pdf: ⁠, Bob Boice (1997-10-01; backlinks):

    The author reviews traditional beliefs about creative illness and suggests that their endorsement of euphoric binging misleads writers. Productive creativity seems to occur more reliably with moderation of work duration and of emotions, not with the fatigue and ensuing depression of binge writing. The author compares binge writers to a matched sample of novice professors who wrote in brief, daily sessions and with generally mild emotions. Binge writers (a) accomplished far less writing overall, (b) got fewer editorial acceptances, (c) scored higher on the Beck Depression Inventory, and (d) listed fewer creative ideas for writing. These data suggest that creative illness, defined by its common emotional state for binge writers (i.e., hypomania and its rushed euphoria brought on by long, intense sessions of working—followed by depression), offers more problems (e.g., working in an emotional, rushed, fatiguing fashion) than magic. The example of Joseph Conrad supports these findings.

  • 2017-dobronyi.pdf: “Goal Setting, Academic Reminders, and College Success: A Large-Scale Field Experiment”⁠, Chris

  • 2018-10-27-googlesurveys-morningwriting.csv (backlinks)

  • 2018-maccabe.pdf (backlinks)

  • 2019-07-17-tylercowen-nealstephenson-converstionswithtyler-71.html (backlinks)

  • 2019-07-27-googlesurveys-morningwriting-fictionvsnonfiction.csv (backlinks)

  • 2020-brown.pdf: ⁠, Zachariah C. Brown, Eric M. Anicich, Adam D. Galinsky (2020-11-01):


    • Experiencing low status increases the use of jargon.
    • Low status increases jargon use because it activates evaluative concerns.
    • Archival analyses found a low status → jargon effect across 64k dissertation titles.
    • Experiments provided a causal link and mediation path from low status to jargon use.
    • The use of acronyms also serves a status compensation function.

    Jargon is commonly used to efficiently communicate and signal group membership. We propose that jargon use also serves a status compensation function. We first define jargon and distinguish it from slang and technical language. Nine studies, including experiments and archival data analyses, test whether low status increases jargon use. Analyses of 64,000 dissertations found that titles produced by authors from lower-status schools included more jargon than titles from higher-status school authors. Experimental manipulations established that low status causally increases jargon use, even in live conversations. Statistical mediation and experimental-causal-chain analyses demonstrated that the low status → jargon effect is driven by increased concern with audience evaluations over conversational clarity. Additional archival and experimental evidence found that acronyms and legalese serve a similar status-compensation function as other forms of jargon (e.g., complex language). These findings establish a new driver of jargon use and demonstrate that communication, like consumption, can be both compensatory and conspicuous.

  • 2020-reilly.pdf: ⁠, Jamie Reilly, Alexandra Kelly, Bonnie M. Zuckerman, Peter P. Twigg, Melissa Wells, Katie R. Jobson, Maurice Flurie (2020-01-02; backlinks):

    Taboo words represent a potent subset of natural language. It has been hypothesized that “tabooness” reflects an emergent property of negative valence and high physiological arousal of word referents. Many taboo words (e.g., dick, shit) are indeed consistent with this claim. Nevertheless, American English is also rife with negatively valenced, highly arousing words the usage of which is not socially condemned (e.g., cancer, abortion, welfare).

    We evaluated prediction of tabooness of single words and novel taboo compound words from a combination of phonological, lexical, and semantic variables (e.g., semantic category, word length).

    For single words, physiological arousal and emotional valence strongly predicted tabooness with additional moderating contributions from form (phonology) and meaning (semantic category).

    In Experiment 2, raters judged plausibility for combinations of common nouns with taboo words to form novel taboo compounds (e.g., shitgibbon). A mixture of formal (e.g., ratio of stop consonants, length) and semantic variables (e.g., ± receptacle, ± profession) predicted the quality of novel taboo compounding. Together, these studies provide complementary evidence for interactions between word form and meaning and an algorithmic prediction of tabooness in American English.

    We discuss applications for models of taboo word representation.

    [Profanity regression dataset (top 10: nigger · cocksucker · kike · fag · motherfucker · cunt · retard · spic · fuck · slut); Combo-words dataset (top 10: sack · trash · mouth · pig · rat · stick · rod · sauce · whale · bone); a list of all possible combinations of profanity+combo:

    • “nigger sack”
    • “cocksucker sack”
    • “kike sack”
    • “fag sack”
    • “motherfucker sack”
    • “cunt sack”
    • “retard sack”
    • “spic sack”
    • “fuck sack”
    • “slut sack”
    • “nigger trash”
    • “cocksucker trash”
    • “kike trash”
    • “fag trash”
    • “motherfucker trash”
    • “cunt trash”
    • “retard trash”
    • “spic trash”
    • “fuck trash”
    • “slut trash”
    • “nigger mouth”
    • “cocksucker mouth”
    • “kike mouth”
    • “fag mouth”
    • “motherfucker mouth”
    • “cunt mouth”
    • “retard mouth”
    • “spic mouth”
    • “fuck mouth”
    • “slut mouth”
    • “nigger pig”
    • “cocksucker pig”
    • “kike pig”
    • “fag pig”
    • “motherfucker pig”
    • “cunt pig”
    • “retard pig”
    • “spic pig”
    • “fuck pig”
    • “slut pig”
    • “nigger rat”
    • “cocksucker rat”
    • “kike rat”
    • “fag rat”
    • “motherfucker rat”
    • “cunt rat”
    • “retard rat”
    • “spic rat”
    • “fuck rat”
    • “slut rat”
    • “nigger stick”
    • “cocksucker stick”
    • “kike stick”
    • “fag stick”
    • “motherfucker stick”
    • “cunt stick”
    • “retard stick”
    • “spic stick”
    • “fuck stick”
    • “slut stick”
    • “nigger rod”
    • “cocksucker rod”
    • “kike rod”
    • “fag rod”
    • “motherfucker rod”
    • “cunt rod”
    • “retard rod”
    • “spic rod”
    • “fuck rod”
    • “slut rod”
    • “nigger sauce”
    • “cocksucker sauce”
    • “kike sauce”
    • “fag sauce”
    • “motherfucker sauce”
    • “cunt sauce”
    • “retard sauce”
    • “spic sauce”
    • “fuck sauce”
    • “slut sauce”
    • “nigger whale”
    • “cocksucker whale”
    • “kike whale”
    • “fag whale”
    • “motherfucker whale”
    • “cunt whale”
    • “retard whale”
    • “spic whale”
    • “fuck whale”
    • “slut whale”
    • “nigger bone”
    • “cocksucker bone”
    • “kike bone”
    • “fag bone”
    • “motherfucker bone”
    • “cunt bone”
    • “retard bone”
    • “spic bone”
    • “fuck bone” ]