A New Study Could Explain Why Americans Think Canadians Are So Damn Nice

Our northern neighbors are disproportionately polite on Twitter.

Two nice Canadian guys.BrankoPhoto/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

You’ve heard the stereotype: Canadians, bless ’em, are the politest of people. When we Americans think about (ah-boot?) our neighbors to the north, we often think they profusely apologize, don’t commit crimes, and lay off honking their horns in traffic. Even still, research has shown this stereotype about Canadian behavior is false, and there is actually no discernible difference between Americans’ and Canadians’ personalities.

But now, new research reflects our biases: Canadians are disproportionately politer than Americans on Twitter.

A group of Canadian linguists from McMaster University published a study Wednesday in the journal PLOS ONE that shows Canadians disproportionately use polite and positive language on the social media platform, while American tweets are characterized by negative words and profanity.

The researchers collected 40 million tweets from both Canadian and American accounts between February 2015 and February 2016—note, before our Tweeter-in-Chief took the Oval—and used statistical analysis to find words tweeted disproportionately more or less by individuals from each nation. They discovered words over-represented in Canadian tweets were largely positive, and by contrast, words over-represented in American tweets were largely negative. While it’s unclear what came first—the stereotype or the language—the authors argue language employed by the countries could be reinforcing our long-held beliefs about them.

“If you actually just survey a bunch of Canadians and survey a bunch of Americans and compare their personality traits—there is no difference,” Bryor Snefjella, a PhD student at McMaster University and lead author on the study, tells Mother Jones. But, “it might be the case that we construct our national identities via our linguistic choices.”

The group’s findings, Snefjella says, were somewhat of a lucky accident. The team was initially interested in investigating differences in Canadian and American dialects (for example, using the word pop versus soda), but what emerged from the data wasn’t what they expected.

“We actually sort of stumbled into this debate,” Snefjella says. “We had all this Twitter data and we were combing through it to find interesting differences in language use, but what fell out was phycological differences, not dialectical ones.”

Americans, they found, tended to tweet disproportionately more emojis (especially negative ones), swear words, and racial slurs, as well as emotionally charged, negative words. Some of the words “most characteristic” of Americans include hate, miss, tiredmad, and ugly—but also money, hair, and high.

The top 250 American words. The larger the word, the more over-represented it is in American tweets.

McMaster University

Canadians, on the other hand, tend to favor emoticons—:) or ;)—with the exception of the purple heart emoji (💜) and maple leaf (🍁) and saw an over-representation of emotionally positive words like great, thanks, amazing, beautiful, and happy, in addition to neutral words like coffee, winter, hockey, beer, and party.

The top 250 Canadian words. The larger the word, the more over-represented it is in Canadian tweets.

McMaster University

Just for fun, here are two short sentences I put together using only the most characteristic American words: Im really bored, dude. Beach tomorrow? And here’s one with only the Canadian words: Happy birthday, guys. Enjoy ur beautiful evening.

To be clear: The vast majority of words (99.66 percent) tweeted by Americans and our neighbors were not used in consistently different ways. After all, we largely speak the same language. But relative to each other, some words stuck out as being “more characteristic” of Canadians and vice versa—and those words mirrored national stereotypes.

“We aren’t saying, Americans aren’t nice, so they don’t talk nice, and Canadians are nice, so they talk nice,” says Snefjella. “That is exactly what we aren’t saying.” Rather, the result may provide a clue as to why the stereotype exists in the first place.

As the authors point out, there are several limitations of the study, the biggest caveat being that just because Canadians may use a disproportionate amount of positive language on Twitter, it doesn’t prove that language is the origin of the stereotype. They also write that “while Twitter provides a sample large in both number, demographics, and geographical coverage, it is still not a random sample of the population.”

And though the data collection happened just before a presidential election in the United States, Snefjella maintains the then-looming election “doesn’t seem to be skewing the results of the study.” (Research shows the election did have an effect on aggregate happiness on Twitter, but only after Election Day 2016.)

Limitations aside, the study’s authors call for more research. “This is the first study that has looked at this. It immediately begs replication,” says Snefjella. “We are sticking our necks out, but that hasn’t happened yet.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate