Is the Truth Really Ugly?

1.1 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?1 of 10

CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?
Is the Truth Really Ugly?
true
true
true
You must read each slide, and complete any questions on the slide, in sequence.

Welcome

Is the Truth Really Ugly?

Authors:

Kelly M. Goedert, Seton Hall University

Susan A. Nolan, Seton Hall University

Kaylise D. Algrim, Seton Hall University

What makes a word bad? Almost all languages have certain words that are not polite to say at the dinner table. These words might be acceptable in some situations, like a night out with friends, but not in others, such as arguing a case in court. While offensive language can be, well, offensive, it can also be a way to express emotions more emphatically. Cursing certainly has some negative connotations, but are there ways swearing can be good? Moreover, is there something different about people who use more four-letter words?

girl playing games on desktop computer.
Erik Von Weber/Taxi/Getty Images
Why do you swear? Click the most common situation in which you swear.

1.2 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?2 of 10

A series of studies compared whether frequently using curse words may relate to truth-telling (Feldman et al., 2017). Because swearing is often perceived negatively, some people view those who swear as untrustworthy and dishonest. However, an international team of researchers wondered if people who swear more often are more honest than those who don’t swear so frequently. After all, swearing can be seen as a glimpse of someone’s “unfiltered feelings” (p. 817). So, maybe swearing is related to honesty. The research team tested people’s tendency for dishonesty alongside their overall use and general pleasure in using curse words.

Do you think that people who swear more often are more honest or less honest than those who don’t swear so frequently?

1.3 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?3 of 10

In the study, participants completed an honesty measure on which they answered questions for which a yes answer is unlikely, such as “Are all your habits good and desirable ones?” The honesty measures assessed whether they tended to answer honestly versus in a way that was socially desirable (and so less honest).

Participants were then asked about their swearing in three ways. First, participants reported their frequency of swearing in different contexts, a measure called “profanity self-report.” They then completed two behavioral measures: (1) Students were asked to list the curse words they “use the most,” and then (2) students were asked to list the curse words they “like the most.” The researchers added, “Feel free, don’t hold back.”

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Based on the results shown here, which profanity measure had the largest variability in participant responses?
Correct! The number of curse words listed as used the most had the highest standard deviation, 2.61.
Actually, the number of curse words listed as used the most had the highest standard deviation, 2.61.

1.4 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?4 of 10

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

In terms of its relation with honesty, the Pearson correlation coefficient for profanity self-report has the lowest p value. What information can we gather from this?
Correct! The p value for correlation between honesty and self-reported profanity is the lowest among the correlations between honesty and each of the three profanity measures. Lower p values are stronger evidence against the null hypothesis, which is that there is no correlation between two variables.
Actually, the p value for correlation between honesty and self-reported profanity is the lowest among the correlations between honesty and each of the three profanity measures. Lower p values are stronger evidence against the null hypothesis, which is that there is no correlation between two variables.

1.5 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?5 of 10

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

What is the correlation coefficient for enjoyment of profanity, as assessed by the number of curse words that participants listed as ones they like, and honesty?
Correct! The correlation coefficient for enjoyment of profanity and honesty is 0.13. You can find it by looking at the intersection of the row for “Profanity liked” and the column for “Honesty.”
Actually, the correlation coefficient for enjoyment of profanity and honesty is 0.13. You can find it by looking at the intersection of the row for “Profanity liked” and the column for “Honesty.”

1.6 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?6 of 10

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

What is the correlation coefficient for the relation between how frequently participants say they use profanity (profanity self-report) and their honesty scores?
Correct! The correlation coefficient for enjoyment of profanity and honesty is 0.34. You can find it by looking at the intersection of the row for “Profanity self-report” and the column for “Honesty.”
Actually, the correlation coefficient for enjoyment of profanity and honesty is 0.34. You can find it by looking at the intersection of the row for “Profanity self-report” and the column for “Honesty.”

1.7 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?7 of 10

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Which pair of variables showed the weakest relation based on their correlation coefficient?
Correct! There is a significant positive correlation between honesty rating and number of most liked curse words, but that correlation is not as strong as the correlations between all the other pairs of variables.
Actually, there is a significant positive correlation between honesty rating and number of most liked curse words, but that correlation is not as strong as the correlations between all the other pairs of variables.

1.8 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?8 of 10

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Based on the results in this table, is there evidence to reject the null hypothesis that there is no correlation between using profanity, as assessed by any of the three profanity measures, and honesty?
Correct! Based on the positive, statistically significant correlations between honesty ratings and profanity, we would reject the null hypothesis. We know that these correlations are statistically significant because they all have asterisks next to them, indicating p values less than 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001.
Actually, based on the positive, statistically significant correlations between honesty ratings and profanity, we would reject the null hypothesis. We know that these correlations are statistically significant because they all have asterisks next to them, indicating p values less than 0.05, 0.01, or 0.001.

1.9 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?9 of 10

Table 1. Study 1: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Variables
Variables Mean SD Honesty Profanity self-report Profanity used
Honesty 7.63 3.00 (0.79)
Profanity self-report 6.51 2.56 0.34*** (0.84)
Profanity used 4.09 2.61 0.20** 0.46*** (—)
Profanity liked 1.60 1.62 0.13* 0.41*** 0.45***

* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

The numbers in parentheses are coefficient alphas. Notice that these are at the intersections of the variables with themselves—for example, the intersection of the row and the column for “Honesty.” From these, we can get a sense that the “Honesty” and “Profanity self-report” measures are reliable, given that they have large coefficient alphas of 0.79 and 0.84, respectively. Why is there no coefficient alpha for “Profanity used”? (The same is true for “Profanity liked.”) (Hint: Think about how coefficient alpha is calculated.)
Correct! Coefficient alpha is essentially the average of all possible split-half correlations. With just one item, the number of words, we can’t calculate any split-half correlations, so we cannot calculate coefficient alpha.
Actually, coefficient alpha is essentially the average of all possible split-half correlations. With just one item, the number of words, we can’t calculate any split-half correlations, so we cannot calculate coefficient alpha.

1.10 CORRELATION: IS THE TRUTH REALLY UGLY?10 of 10

The bottom line: The international research team found evidence that people who like to swear might just be more honest and show their true colors more often.

A passive aggressive woman stands in front of a blue wall and flips off the camera while concealing it with a paper heart.
harpazo_hope/Moment/Getty Images

REFERENCES

Feldman, G., Lian, H., Kosinski, M., & Stillwell, D. (2017). Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty.” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 816–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616681055