Texting abbreviations come with a hidden social penalty, according to new psychology research

Using texting abbreviations might save a few seconds, but a comprehensive new study suggests this efficiency could come at a social cost. The research indicates that people who use texting shortcuts are perceived as less sincere and are less likely to receive a response, primarily because their messages are seen as requiring less effort. This series of studies was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

As digital communication becomes the primary way many people connect, the language we use in these spaces is constantly evolving. Texting has developed its own dialect, filled with abbreviations like “ttyl” (talk to you later) or “hru?” (how are you?). While nearly all texters use these shortcuts, researchers had little understanding of their social consequences.

A team of researchers led by David Fang of Stanford University wanted to investigate how these common abbreviations affect interpersonal perceptions. They considered two competing possibilities: abbreviations could be seen as casual and informal, potentially making people feel closer, or they could be interpreted as a lack of investment in the conversation, harming the connection.

To explore this question, the researchers conducted a series of eight studies involving more than 5,000 participants. They used a variety of methods to see if the effects would appear in different situations. In an initial experiment, participants were shown hypothetical text message conversations. Some participants saw conversations where one person used full sentences, while others saw the same conversations but with common abbreviations.

People who read the abbreviated texts rated the sender as less sincere. They also reported being less likely to text back compared to those who read the fully written messages. The analysis showed that this difference was explained by the perception of effort; participants felt the person using abbreviations was not trying as hard in the conversation.

Free daily newsletter

Another study aimed to see how this perception changed behavior. Participants were put in a position to reply to a message that either contained abbreviations or did not. When responding to messages with abbreviations, participants wrote shorter replies and reported putting less effort into their own messages. This finding suggests a reciprocal effect, where the perceived low effort from one person leads to a similar low-effort response from the other, potentially degrading the quality of the interaction.

To determine if these findings held up in the real world, the researchers analyzed actual text message histories provided by participants. Individuals were asked to submit a recent conversation and then rate their conversational partner. Consistent with the lab experiments, people whose texting partners used more abbreviations perceived them as less sincere. They also indicated they were less likely to want to continue the conversation. The perception of low effort once again appeared to be the underlying reason for these negative judgments.

The investigation moved into a more active, real-world setting with a field experiment on the social messaging platform Discord. The researchers sent direct messages to nearly 1,900 Discord users, asking for a recommendation for an animated show. Half of the messages were written with abbreviations, while the other half used full text.

The messages using full text received a significantly higher response rate. This effect was observed across several different categories of abbreviations, including shortenings like “info” for “information” and contractions like “wats” for “what’s.”

The team also tested for situations that might change this effect. In one experiment, they manipulated the density of abbreviations, showing participants conversations with either a small number (10% of words) or a larger number (20% of words) of shortcuts. They also varied the total length of the conversation.

The negative perception of abbreviations remained consistent. Even a small number of shortcuts was enough to lower ratings of sincerity and the likelihood of a response. The overall length of the conversation did not change this outcome.

Another experiment explored whether relationship closeness would make a difference. Participants were asked to imagine texting either a close friend or a distant acquaintance. Even when imagining a conversation with a close friend, the use of abbreviations still led to perceptions of lower sincerity and a reduced desire to text back. This suggests that the negative impression created by low-effort communication can persist even in established relationships where informality might be expected.

To increase the realism of their investigation, the researchers conducted an interactive speed-dating study. Participants were paired up to have a real-time text conversation with a stranger. Unbeknownst to them, one person in each pair was secretly instructed to use a list of words, which were either full words or their abbreviated versions.

After the five-minute chat, participants were asked if they wanted to exchange contact information to continue talking. Those who had been texting with someone using abbreviations were significantly less likely to agree to exchange contact information.

Finally, the researchers analyzed a large dataset of real conversations from the dating application Tinder. Examining over 200,000 conversations from 686 users, they found a clear pattern. Users who used a higher proportion of abbreviations in their messages tended to have shorter conversations on average. This correlation held even after accounting for other factors like gender, education, and other elements of writing style, providing further evidence from a naturalistic dating context that abbreviations are associated with less successful interactions.

“Our research reveals that texting abbreviations negatively affect interpersonal communication by decreasing perceived effort, which in turn leads to lower perceived sincerity and responsiveness. Ultimately, our findings underscore the importance of considering the impact of evolving language use in the digital era on the quality and nature of interpersonal communication,” Fang and his colleagues concluded.

The studies have some limitations. Most of the experiments focused on brief, initial interactions rather than long-term relationships where communication norms might be different. The participants were also primarily English speakers, and it is possible that the perception of abbreviations varies across different cultures and languages.

Future research could explore the long-term effects of using abbreviations on relationship satisfaction and examine these dynamics in different cultural contexts or in group chat settings. Researchers could also investigate the motivations behind using abbreviations, as the sender’s intent might influence how their messages are received.

The study, “Shortcuts to Insincerity: Texting Abbreviations Seem Insincere and Not Worth Answering,” was authored by David Fang, Yiran (Eileen) Zhang, and Sam J. Maglio.