Human head with language embedded in neural pathways influencing emotional and normative choices.

Decoding Human Behavior: How Language Shapes Our Choices

Nico Varela in Mind & Education August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Uncover the surprising ways linguistic cues influence emotions, norms, and decision-making, altering behavior beyond rational considerations."

For decades, understanding human behavior in economic games has been a major area of study. One-shot and anonymous interactions, in particular, allow for the study of human behavior in its purest form, free from the distortions of potential future consequences or social influences.

It has long been known that in such contexts, individuals do not merely maximize their monetary outcome. For instance, a substantial proportion of people share their money in the dictator game (Kahneman, Knetsh & Thaler, 1986). This raises the question: if not material gain, what utility are individuals seeking to maximize?

The search of this utility function has been a central focus of research. An influential line of work pertains to “social preferences”. While differing in many details, these models are based on a foundational assumption: that a player's utility depends only on the monetary payoffs of all individuals involved in the interaction. Yet, this “consequentialist assumption” – the foundational assumption that decisions are purely based on monetary consequences – is facing increasing criticism.

The Linguistic Twist: How Words Influence Decisions

Human head with language embedded in neural pathways influencing emotional and normative choices.

A major criticism emerges from experiments emphasizing the impact of linguistic content on individuals' choices. It turns out the words we use can subtly—or not so subtly—influence the choices people make, even when the underlying economics remain the same. This is more than just semantics; it’s a fundamental shift in understanding how we make decisions.

Several studies highlight how sensitive human behavior is to linguistic variations:

The Power of Labels: Liberman et al. (2004) found that simply changing the name of a Prisoner's Dilemma from the “Wall Street game" to the “Community game” significantly increased cooperation rates. This suggests that labels can activate different cognitive frames.
Framing Actions: Eriksson et al. (2017) demonstrated that describing the act of declining an offer as “rejecting the proposer's offer” versus “reducing the proposer's payoff” led to higher rejection rates, even though the economic outcome was identical.
Positive Spins: Capraro and Rand (2018) showed that labeling one choice as the “nice thing to do” could sway individuals towards that option, regardless of its actual implications.
Boosting Altruism: Capraro and Vanzo (2019) discovered that labeling an altruistic action as “boosting” the recipient increased its likelihood, further confirming the power of positive linguistic frames.

These findings challenge the traditional view that people make decisions solely based on rational calculations of outcome. Instead, they underscore the critical role of linguistic frames. This has prompted a call for a “paradigm shift from outcome-based to language-based preferences” (Capraro et al., 2024b). The central question now is: How do linguistic frames affect people's decisions?

The Future of Understanding Human Choices

A growing body of evidence suggests that linguistic content significantly impacts decisions beyond monetary outcomes. This article introduces a framework to understand human behaviour, moving past the narrow focus of outcome-based preferences. According to the LENS model, Linguistic content evokes Emotions and suggests Norms, which then interact to influence Strategy choice. The article examines evidence supporting each path of the model and raises critical questions for future research. Ultimately, this article aims to contribute to the evolution of behavioural modelling by recognizing and underscoring the critical role of language in shaping human actions.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.15293,

Title: Human Behaviour Through A Lens: How Linguistic Content Triggers Emotions And Norms And Determines Strategy Choices

Subject: cs.cl cs.gt econ.gn physics.soc-ph q-fin.ec

Authors: Valerio Capraro

Published: 22-03-2024

Everything You Need To Know

What is the 'consequentialist assumption' in the context of understanding decision-making, and why is it being challenged?

The 'consequentialist assumption' is the foundational idea that decisions are purely based on monetary consequences. This concept assumes that individuals make choices by maximizing their monetary outcome. However, this assumption is facing increasing criticism because experiments show that linguistic content significantly influences individuals' choices, even when the underlying monetary outcomes remain the same. Studies show that subtle changes in wording affect decisions, suggesting that factors beyond monetary consequences play a critical role.

How does the LENS model explain the influence of language on human behavior, and what are its key components?

The LENS model provides a framework for understanding how language influences human behavior. According to the LENS model, Linguistic content evokes Emotions and suggests Norms, which then interact to influence Strategy choice. This model moves beyond outcome-based preferences by recognizing the critical role of language in shaping human actions, suggesting that how something is communicated affects decisions through emotional and normative pathways.

Can you provide specific examples from research that demonstrate how linguistic framing alters behavior in economic games?

Several studies demonstrate how linguistic framing changes behavior in economic games. For example, Liberman et al. (2004) found that changing the name of a Prisoner's Dilemma from the “Wall Street game” to the “Community game” significantly increased cooperation rates. Eriksson et al. (2017) showed that describing declining an offer as “rejecting the proposer's offer” versus “reducing the proposer's payoff” led to higher rejection rates. Capraro and Rand (2018) demonstrated that labeling a choice as the “nice thing to do” could sway individuals towards that option. Capraro and Vanzo (2019) discovered that labeling an altruistic action as “boosting” the recipient increased its likelihood. These examples highlight how sensitive human behavior is to linguistic variations.

What does the shift 'from outcome-based to language-based preferences' imply for future research in behavioral economics?

The shift 'from outcome-based to language-based preferences' signifies a paradigm shift in behavioral economics. It suggests that future research should focus on understanding how linguistic frames affect decisions, moving beyond the narrow focus on monetary outcomes. This change implies a deeper investigation into the psychological and social mechanisms through which language shapes emotions, norms, and strategic choices. This shift may lead to new models that better predict and explain human behavior by incorporating the influence of language.

How do 'social preferences' relate to the idea that individuals don't merely maximize monetary outcomes, and what are the limitations of focusing solely on social preferences?

Social preferences address the observation that individuals do not merely maximize their monetary outcomes in economic interactions. Models of social preferences propose that a player's utility depends on the monetary payoffs of all individuals involved, not just their own. However, focusing solely on social preferences has limitations because it still operates under the 'consequentialist assumption' that decisions are purely based on monetary consequences. Evidence shows that linguistic framing can significantly impact decisions independent of monetary outcomes or social preferences, suggesting that a more comprehensive model like the LENS model, which incorporates language, emotions, and norms, is needed to fully understand human behavior.