In an era where over one trillion text messages are sent annually in the United States alone, a new study suggests we might be undermining our relationships with every “ttyl” and “omw” we type.
Researchers from Stanford and the University of Toronto have uncovered a surprising truth about texting abbreviations that might have you thinking twice before shortening your next message.
Published online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General on November 14, 2024, the comprehensive study “Shortcuts to Insincerity: Texting Abbreviations Seem Insincere and Not Worth Answering” examined how these digital shortcuts affect our perceptions of others and our willingness to maintain conversation.
The Ubiquity of Textese
The abbreviation-laden language of text messages, sometimes called “textese” or “SMS language,” has become nearly universal.
The researchers found that 99.3% of texters have used some form of abbreviations in the past, with 90.1% routinely incorporating them into daily conversations.
It’s a communication style that crosses age brackets, with various forms of shorthand becoming increasingly standard in digital communication.
Common abbreviations take many forms – from simple contractions like “msg” for “message” to phonological abbreviations like “thanx” for “thanks,” acronyms like “ttyl” for “talk to you later,” and single letter homophones like “u” for “you.”
Eight Studies, One Consistent Finding
Led by David Fang and Yiran (Eileen) Zhang from Stanford University along with Sam J. Maglio from the University of Toronto, the researchers conducted an impressive array of eight separate studies involving 5,306 participants.
“Despite texting abbreviations being used by virtually all texters across age brackets, their impacts on interpersonal relationships and broader social and psychological consequences have remained largely unexplored,” the authors note in their paper.
Their methodologies were diverse and thorough.
The team conducted high-powered vignette studies where participants rated conversations with and without abbreviations.
They implemented discourse completion tasks where participants composed replies to messages with varying levels of abbreviation.
They collected surveys where participants evaluated their own real-world text messaging history.
They launched a field experiment on Discord, testing response rates to various abbreviation types across nearly 1,900 users.
They organized interactive online speed dating experiments during Valentine’s week.
Perhaps most impressively, they analyzed 202,154 Tinder conversations from 686 users spanning 37 countries across five continents.
Across all these different contexts and methods, the finding was remarkably consistent: using abbreviations decreased both perceived sincerity and the likelihood of receiving a response.
The Psychology Behind the Keyboard
The researchers found that the negative reaction to abbreviations stems primarily from perceptions of reduced effort.
According to social exchange theory, which spans psychology, economics, and sociology, perceptions in relationships depend on a cost-benefit balance.
In text conversations, the perceived effort one person invests significantly influences how the other person responds.
When someone uses abbreviations, the message is literally shorter in characters than its full-length counterpart, which recipients interpret as a sign of lower commitment to the conversation.
The researchers explain that “communicators tend to use effort as a heuristic for quality,” meaning we judge the value of an interaction partly based on how much work the other person seems to be putting in.
Perceiving lower effort from an abbreviation user triggers perceptions of lower conversational quality and creates psychological distance.
Real-World Testing Reveals Real Consequences
Perhaps the most compelling evidence came from the field experiment conducted on Discord, a popular messaging platform with over 500,000 members in the channel studied.
The researchers sent messages to 1,889 users, with half receiving abbreviated messages and half receiving full-text equivalents.
The results were striking: recipients were significantly less likely to respond to abbreviated messages (15%) compared to full-text messages (20%).
This effect held across nearly all types of abbreviations tested.
In the discourse completion task study, participants put in measurably less effort when replying to senders who used abbreviations.
Their responses were both shorter (16.47 characters on average versus 25.74 for full-text messages) and rated as showing less effort.
From Speed Dating to Tinder: Testing Across Contexts
To examine how these effects play out in romantic contexts, the researchers conducted a novel experiment during Valentine’s Week 2024.
They matched heterosexual participants for virtual speed dates, manipulating whether one person in each pair used abbreviations.
“Participants were less likely to exchange contact information with those who were manipulated to use texting abbreviations,” the study reports.
Only 21.15% of participants wanted to continue conversations with people who used abbreviations, compared to 36.96% for those using full text.
The Tinder data provided even more compelling evidence.
After analyzing message histories from 686 users across five continents, the researchers found that “abbreviation usage among Tinder users is associated with lower average and median conversational length.” Even after controlling for factors like age, gender, education, and conversation content, a 1% increase in abbreviation usage correlated with approximately 7% shorter conversations.
No Escape: Potential Moderators Tested and Dismissed
The research team systematically tested whether various factors might reduce the negative impact of abbreviations.
First, they examined whether relationship closeness matters.
Perhaps abbreviations are more acceptable when texting a close friend? The evidence suggested otherwise – even in close relationships, abbreviation users were perceived as less sincere.
What about the length of the text exchange? The researchers tested whether abbreviations matter less in longer conversations but found that the negative effects persisted regardless of message length.
They also investigated whether the density of abbreviations makes a difference, testing messages with 0%, 10%, and 20% abbreviated content.
Even at the lower concentration, abbreviated messages were rated as significantly less sincere.
Another possibility was that certain types of abbreviations might be less problematic than others.
Yet across contractions, phonological abbreviations, acronyms, shortenings, accent stylizations, and homophones, the negative effect remained consistent (with phonological abbreviations performing marginally better, but still worse than full text).
The Intuition Gap
Perhaps most surprising was the findings of a post-test survey, which revealed that only 15.8% of participants accurately predicted these results.
The vast majority (80%) believed others would be indifferent to abbreviation use, indicating a significant gap between how we think abbreviations are perceived and their actual impact.
This study fills that gap, revealing that our shortcuts might be shortchanging our connections.
Implications for Digital Communication
The study has significant implications for how we approach digital communication, especially in contexts where relationship building is important.
Dating apps, professional networking, and maintaining friendships all potentially suffer when we prioritize brevity over thoughtfulness.
The findings suggest that the convenience of typing fewer characters comes at a social cost.
While abbreviations emerged partly due to character limits and difficult input methods on early mobile phones, their continued use on modern devices with full keyboards may be unnecessary.
For those looking to make better impressions in digital spaces, the message is clear: take the time to type full words.
The extra effort signals sincerity and increases the likelihood of meaningful engagement.
The Road Ahead
As the researchers acknowledge, language usage in digital contexts continues to evolve.
Future research could explore cultural variations in abbreviation perception, different contexts where abbreviations might be more acceptable, and how perceptions might change over time as norms shift.
The study doesn’t suggest eliminating abbreviations entirely – certain contexts may be less sensitive to these effects – but it does highlight the importance of being mindful about our communication choices.
In a world where digital communication increasingly mediates our relationships, understanding these subtle social dynamics becomes ever more critical.
The next time you’re tempted to type “thx” instead of “thanks,” remember that those few extra keystrokes might make the difference between connection and silence.
Study Information
- Journal: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Publication Date: November 14, 2024 (Online ahead of print)
- Title: Shortcuts to Insincerity: Texting Abbreviations Seem Insincere and Not Worth Answering
- Authors:
- David Fang, Department of Marketing, Stanford University
- Yiran (Eileen) Zhang, Department of Marketing, Stanford University
- Sam J. Maglio, Department of Marketing, University of Toronto
- PMID: 39541519
- DOI: 10.1037/xge0001684