{"title":"Is LIWC reliable, efficient, and effective for the analysis of large online datasets in forensic and security contexts?","authors":"Madison Hunter, Tim Grant","doi":"10.1016/j.acorp.2025.100118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article evaluates the reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness of Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Boyd et al., 2022) for the analysis of a white nationalist forum. This is important because LIWC has been the computational tool of choice for scores of studies generally and many examining extremist content in a forensic or security context. Our purpose, therefore, is to understand whether LIWC can be depended upon for large-scale analyses; we initially examine this here using a small sample of posts from a set of just eight users and manually checking the program's automated codings of a subset of categories. Our results show that the LIWC coding cannot be relied upon – precision falls to as low as 49.6 % and recall as low as 41.7 % for some categories. It would be possible to engage in considerable manual correction of these results, but this undermines its purported efficiency for large datasets.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72254,"journal":{"name":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","volume":"5 1","pages":"Article 100118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Corpus Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666799125000012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article evaluates the reliability, efficiency, and effectiveness of Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Boyd et al., 2022) for the analysis of a white nationalist forum. This is important because LIWC has been the computational tool of choice for scores of studies generally and many examining extremist content in a forensic or security context. Our purpose, therefore, is to understand whether LIWC can be depended upon for large-scale analyses; we initially examine this here using a small sample of posts from a set of just eight users and manually checking the program's automated codings of a subset of categories. Our results show that the LIWC coding cannot be relied upon – precision falls to as low as 49.6 % and recall as low as 41.7 % for some categories. It would be possible to engage in considerable manual correction of these results, but this undermines its purported efficiency for large datasets.