skip to main content
research-article

Causal Effects of Brevity on Style and Success in Social Media

Published:07 November 2019Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

In online communities, where billions of people strive to propagate their messages, understanding how wording affects success is of primary importance. In this work, we are interested in one particularly salient aspect of wording: brevity. What is the causal effect of brevity on message success? What are the linguistic traits of brevity? When is brevity beneficial, and when is it not? Whereas most prior work has studied the effect of wording on style and success in observational setups, we conduct a controlled experiment, in which crowd workers shorten social media posts to prescribed target lengths and other crowd workers subsequently rate the original and shortened versions. This allows us to isolate the causal effect of brevity on the success of a message. We find that concise messages are on average more successful than the original messages up to a length reduction of 30--40%. The optimal reduction is on average between 10% and 20%. The observed effect is robust across different subpopulations of raters and is the strongest for raters who visit social media on a daily basis. Finally, we discover unique linguistic and content traits of brevity and correlate them with the measured probability of success in order to distinguish effective from ineffective shortening strategies. Overall, our findings are important for developing a better understanding of the effect of brevity on the success of messages in online social media.

References

  1. Yoav Artzi, Patrick Pantel, and Michael Gamon. 2012. Predicting responses to microblog posts. In Proc. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lars Backstrom, Eytan Bakshy, Jon M Kleinberg, Thomas M Lento, and Itamar Rosenn. 2011. Center of attention: How Facebook users allocate attention across friends. Proc. International Conference on Web and Social Media (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Eytan Bakshy, Jake M Hofman, Winter A Mason, and Duncan J Watts. 2011. Everyone's an influencer: Quantifying influence on Twitter. In Proc. ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Roy F Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer, and Kathleen D Vohs. 2001. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 5, 4 (2001), 323.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. David Bawden and Lyn Robinson. 2009. The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35, 2 (2009), 180--191.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jonah Berger and Katherine L Milkman. 2012. What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 49, 2 (2012), 192--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Michael S Bernstein, Greg Little, Robert C Miller, Björn Hartmann, Mark S Ackerman, David R Karger, David Crowell, and Katrina Panovich. 2015. Soylent: A word processor with a crowd inside. Commun. ACM, Vol. 58, 8 (2015), 85--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Yann Bramoulle and Lorenzo Ductor. 2018. Title length. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 150 (2018), 311--324.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Steven Burrows, Martin Potthast, and Benno Stein. 2013. Paraphrase acquisition via crowdsourcing and machine learning. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, Vol. 4, 3 (2013), 43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ziqiang Cao, Chengyao Chen, Wenjie Li, Sujian Li, Furu Wei, and Ming Zhou. 2016. TGSum: Build tweet guided multi-document summarization dataset. In Proc. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Raman Chandrasekar and Bangalore Srinivas. 1997. Automatic induction of rules for text simplification. Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 10, 3 (1997), 183--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Justin Cheng, Michael Bernstein, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. In Proc. ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, Moritz Sudhof, Dan Jurafsky, Jure Leskovec, and Christopher Potts. 2013. A computational approach to politeness with application to social factors. Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Marie-Paule Daniel and Michel Denis. 2004. The production of route directions: Investigating conditions that favour conciseness in spatial discourse. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 18, 1 (2004), 57--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Christopher Dougherty. 2011. Introduction to Econometrics. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Marko Dragojevic and Howard Giles. 2016. I don't like you because you're hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, Vol. 42, 3 (2016), 396--420.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Jacob Eisenstein. 2013. What to do about bad language on the internet. In Proc. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Boris Fritscher and Yves Pigneur. 2009. Supporting business model modelling: A compromise between creativity and constraints. In Proc. International Workshop on Task Models and Diagrams.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Kristina Gligorić, Ashton Anderson, and Robert West. 2018. How constraints affect content: The case of Twitter's switch from 140 to 280 characters. In Proc. International Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Manuel Gómez-Rodríguez, Krishna P Gummadi, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2014. Quantifying information overload in social media and its impact on social contagions. In Proc. International Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Marco Guerini, Carlo Strapparava, and Gözde Özbal. 2011. Exploring text virality in social networks. In Proc. International Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Beth A Hennessey. 1989. The effect of extrinsic constraints on children's creativity while using a computer. Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 2, 3 (1989), 151--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Yuheng Hu, Kartik Talamadupula, and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2013. Dude, srsly?: The surprisingly formal nature of Twitter's language. In Proc. International Conference on Web and Social Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Bo Jiang, Nidhi Hegde, Laurent Massoulié, and Don Towsley. 2013. How to optimally allocate your budget of attention in social networks. In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Quentin Jones, Gilad Ravid, and Sheizaf Rafaeli. 2004. Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research, Vol. 15, 2 (2004), 194--210.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Caneel K Joyce. 2009. The Blank Page: Effects of Constraint on Creativity .PhD thesis, UC Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Daniel Jurafsky, Alan Bell, Michelle Gregory, and William D Raymond. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 45 (2001), 229--254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Chiranjeev Kohli, Sunil Thomas, and Rajneesh Suri. 2013. Are you in good hands? Slogan recall: What really matters. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 53, 1 (2013), 31--42.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Nevin Laib. 1990. Conciseness and amplification. College Composition and Communication, Vol. 41, 4 (1990), 443--459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Sotiris Lamprinidis, Daniel Hardt, and Dirk Hovy. 2018. Predicting news headline popularity with syntactic and semantic knowledge using multi-task learning. In Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Walter S Lasecki, Luz Rello, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2015. Measuring text simplification with the crowd. In Proc. ACM Web for All Conference.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Paul Levinson. 2011. The long story about the short medium: Twitter as a communication medium in historical, present, and future context. Journal of Communication Research, Vol. 48 (2011), 7--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. Text Summarization Branches Out (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Elena Lloret and Manuel Palomar. 2013. Towards automatic tweet generation: A comparative study from the text summarization perspective in the journalism genre. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 40, 16 (2013), 6624--6630.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Miriam A Locher and Richard J Watts. 2008. Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behaviour. Mouton de Gruyter.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Marshall McLuhan. 1964. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man .McGraw-Hill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. J McPhee. 2015. Omission: Choosing what to leave out. https://web.archive.org/save/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/14/omission. The New Yorker (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Gaia Melloni, Ariela Caglio, and Paolo Perego. 2017. Saying more with less? Disclosure conciseness, completeness and balance in Integrated Reports. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Page C Moreau and Darren W Dahl. 2005. Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers' creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 32, 1 (2005), 13--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Dhiraj Murthy. 2012. Towards a sociological understanding of social media: Theorizing Twitter. Sociology, Vol. 46, 6 (2012), 1059--1073.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Seth A. Myers, Aneesh Sharma, Pankaj Gupta, and Jimmy Lin. 2014. Information network or social network? The structure of the Twitter follow graph. In Proc. International Conference on World Wide Web.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Balder Onarheim and Michael Biskjaer. 2013. An introduction to creativity constraints. Proc. ISPIM Innovation Conference (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Balder Onarheim and Michael Biskjaer. 2015. Balancing constraints and the sweet spot as coming topics for creativity research. Creativity in Design: Understanding, Capturing, Supporting (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Daniel M Oppenheimer. 2006. Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 20, 2 (2006), 139--156.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Ethan Pancer and Maxwell Poole. 2016. The popularity and virality of political social media: hashtags, mentions, and links predict likes and retweets of 2016 U.S. presidential nominees tweets. Social Influence, Vol. 11, 4 (2016), 259--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. James W Pennebaker, Roger J Booth, and Martha E Francis. 2007. LIWC2007: Linguistic inquiry and word count. LIWC.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Aaditya Prakash, Sadid A Hasan, Kathy Lee, Vivek Datla, Ashequl Qadir, Joey Liu, and Oladimeji Farri. 2016. Neural paraphrase generation with stacked residual LSTM networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03098 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Eddie Shleyner. 2018. The ideal social media post length: A guide for every platform. https://web.archive.org/web/20181104085718/https://blog.hootsuite.com/ideal-social-media-post-length/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Zbynve k vS idák. 1967. Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Vol. 62, 318 (1967), 626--633.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Priya Sidhaye and Jackie Chi Kit Cheung. 2015. Indicative tweet generation: An extractive summarization problem?. In Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Brenda S Sloane. 2003. Say it straight: Teaching conciseness. Teaching English in the Two Year College (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Chenhao Tan, Lillian Lee, and Bo Pang. 2014. The effect of wording on message propagation: Topic- and author-controlled natural experiments on Twitter. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Daniel Kluver, Maximilian A Klein, Aaron Halfaker, Brent Hecht, Loren Terveen, and Joseph A Konstan. 2017. Simulation experiments on (the absence of) ratings bias in reputation systems. In Proc. ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Amiel D Vardi. 2000. Brevity, conciseness, and compression in Roman poetic criticism and the text of Gellius' Noctes Atticae 19.9. 10. American Journal of Philology (2000).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Jui-Yu Weng, Cheng-Lun Yang, Bo-Nian Chen, Yen-Kai Wang, and Shou-De Lin. 2011. IMASS: An intelligent microblog analysis and summarization system. In Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Richard Wright. 1997. Lexical competition and reduction in speech: A preliminary report. Research on Spoken Language Processing Progress Report, Vol. 2 (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Mark Yatskar, Bo Pang, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Lillian Lee. 2010. For the sake of simplicity: Unsupervised extraction of lexical simplifications from Wikipedia. In Proc. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Wenpeng Yin and Hinrich Schütze. 2015. Convolutional neural network for paraphrase identification. In Proc. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Causal Effects of Brevity on Style and Success in Social Media

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!