Academia is a marketplace of ideas. Just as firms market their products with packaging and advertising, scholars market their ideas with writing. Even the best ideas will make an impact only if others understand and build on them. Why, then, is academic writing often difficult to understand? In two experiments and a text analysis of 1,640 articles in premier marketing journals, this research shows that scholars write unclearly in part because they forget that they know more about their research than readers, a phenomenon called “the curse of knowledge.” Knowledge, or familiarity with one’s own research, exacerbates three practices that make academic writing difficult to understand: abstraction, technical language, and passive writing. When marketing scholars know more about a research project, they use more abstract, technical, and passive writing to describe it. Articles with more abstract, technical, and passive writing are harder for readers to understand and are less likely to be cited. The authors call for scholars to overcome the curse of knowledge and provide two tools—a website (writingclaritycalculator.com) and a tutorial—to help them recognize and repair unclear writing so they can write articles that are more likely to make an impact.
AlbaJoseph W.HutchinsonWesley J. (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 411–54.
2.
ArmstrongJ. Scott (1980), “Unintelligible Management Research and Academic Prestige,” Interfaces, 10 (2), 80–86.
3.
BeggIan (1972), “Recall of Meaningful Phrases,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 (4), 431–39.
4.
BenjaminRebekah George (2012), “Reconstructing Readability: Recent Developments and Recommendations in the Analysis of Text Difficulty,” Educational Psychology Review, 24 (1), 63–88.
5.
BergerJonahHumphreysAshleeLudwigStephanMoeWendy W.NetzerOdedSchweidelDavid A. (2019), “Uniting the Tribes: Using Text for Marketing Insight,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (1), 1–25.
6.
BettencourtLance A.HoustonMark B. (2001), “The Impact of Article Method Type and Subject Area on Article Citations and Reference Diversity in JM, JMR, and JCR,” Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–40.
7.
BostianLloyd R. (1983), “How Active, Passive and Nominal Styles Affect Readability of Science Writing,” Journalism Quarterly, 60 (4), 635–70.
8.
BostianLloyd R.TheringAnn C. (1987), “Scientists: Can They Read What They Write?” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 17 (4), 417–27.
9.
BrantsThorstenFranzAlex (2006), Web 1T 5-Gram Version 1 LDC2006T13. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.
10.
BrownZachariah C.AnicichEric M.GalinskyAdam D. (2020), “Compensatory Conspicuous Communication: Low Status Increases Jargon Use,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161, 274–90.
11.
BrysbaertMarcWarrinerAmy BethKupermanVictor (2014), “Concreteness Ratings for 40 Thousand Generally Known English Word Lemmas,” Behavior Research Methods, 46 (3), 904–11.
12.
CamererColinLoewensteinGeorgeWeberMartin (1989), “The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis,” Journal of Political Economy, 97 (5), 1232–54.
13.
CampbellMargaret C (2017), “Consumer Research Contribution: Love It or Leave It,” in Advances in Consumer Research, GneezyAyeletGriskeviciusVladasWilliamsPatti, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 1–5.
14.
ClarkRoy Peter (2008), Writing Tools: 55 Essential Strategies for Every Writer, 1st ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
15.
ColemanE.B.BlumenfeldJ.P. (1963), “Cloze Scores of Nominalizations and Their Grammatical Transformations Using Active Verbs,” Psychological Reports, 13 (3), 651–54.
16.
CornelisLouise H. (1997), Passive and Perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
17.
CrosierKeith (2004), “How Effectively Do Marketing Journals Transfer Useful Learning from Scholars to Practitioners?” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 22 (5), 540–56.
18.
DeightonJohn A.MelaCarl F.MoormanChristine (2021), “Marketing Thinking and Doing,” Journal of Marketing, 85 (1), 1–6.
19.
DidegahFereshtehThelwallMike (2013), “Which Factors Help Authors Produce the Highest Impact Research? Collaboration, Journal and Document Properties,” Journal of Informetrics, 7 (4), 861–73.
20.
FischhoffBaruchBeythRuth (1975), “I Knew It Would Happen: Remembered Probabilities of Once-Future Things,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13 (1), 1–16.
21.
FleschRudolph (1948), “A New Readability Yardstick,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 32 (3), 221–33.
22.
FrazierGary L (2011), “From the Incoming Editor,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (4), 1–2.
23.
GazniAli (2011), “Are the Abstracts of High Impact Articles More Readable? Investigating the Evidence from Top Research Institutions in the World,” Journal of Information Science, 37 (3), 273–81.
24.
GermannFrankEbbesPeterGrewalRajdeep (2015), “The Chief Marketing Officer Matters!” Journal of Marketing, 79 (3), 1–22.
25.
GoesPaulo B.LinMingfengYeungChing-man Au (2014), “‘Popularity Effect’ in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews,” Information Systems Research, 25 (2), 222–38.
26.
GreeneWilliam H. (2003), Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. New York: Macmillan.
27.
GrewalRajdeep (2017), “Journal of Marketing Research: Looking Forward,” Journal of Marketing Research, 54 (1), 1–4.
28.
GunningRobert (1952), The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
HartleyJamesSottoEricPennebakerJames (2002), “Style and Substance in Psychology: Are Influential Articles More Readable Than Less Influential Ones?” Social Studies of Science, 32 (2), 321–34.
30.
HaslamNickKovalPeter (2010), “Predicting Long-Term Citation Impact of Articles in Social and Personality Psychology,” Psychological Reports, 106 (3), 891–900.
31.
HausmanJerry A.HallBronwynGrilichesZvi (1981), “Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship,” NBER Technical Paper Series.
32.
HeathChipHeathDan (2007), Made to Stick. New York: Random House.
33.
HindsPamela J.PattersonMichaelPfefferJeffrey (2001), “Bothered by Abstraction: The Effect of Expertise on Knowledge Transfer and Subsequent Novice Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (6), 1232–43.
34.
HolbrookMorris B. (1986), “A Note on Sadomasochism in the Review Process: I Hate When That Happens,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (3), 104–08.
35.
HuberJoel (2008), “The Value of Sticky Articles,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (3), 257–60.
36.
InmanJ. JeffreyCampbellMargaret C.KirmaniAmnaPriceLinda L. (2018), “Our Vision for the Journal of Consumer Research: It’s All About the Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (5), 955–59.
37.
JamaliHamid R.NikzadMahsa (2011), “Article Title Type and Its Relation with the Number of Downloads and Citations,” Scientometrics, 88 (2), 653–61.
38.
JudgeTimothy A.CableDaniel M.ColbertAmy E.RynesSara L. (2007), “What Causes a Management Article to Be Cited—Article, Author, or Journal?” Academy of Management Journal, 50 (3), 491–506.
39.
KelleyColleen M.JacobyLarry L. (1996), “Adult Egocentrism: Subjective Experience Versus Analytic Bases for Judgment,” Journal of Memory and Language, 35 (2), 157–75.
40.
KennedyPeter (2008), A Guide to Econometrics, 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
41.
KlareGeorge R. (2000), “The Measurement of Readability: Useful Information for Communicators,” ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24 (3), 107–21.
42.
LeiLeiYanSheng (2016), “Readability and Citations in Information Science: Evidence from Abstracts and Articles of Four Journals (2003–2012),” Scientometrics, 108 (3), 1155–69.
MacInnisDeborah J.MorwitzVicki G.BottiSimonaHoffmanDonna L.KozinetsRobert V.LehmannDonald R. (2020), “Creating Boundary-Breaking, Marketing-Relevant Consumer Research,” Journal of Marketing, 84 (2), 1–23.
45.
Metoyer-DuranCheryl (1993), “The Readability of Published, Accepted, and Rejected Papers Appearing in College & Research Libraries,” College & Research Libraries, 54 (6), 517–26.
46.
MickDavid Glen (2006), “Meaning and Mattering Through Transformative Consumer Research,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 33, PriceLinda LaVonnePechmannCornelia, eds. Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research, 1–4.
47.
MoormanChristinevanHarald J.HeerdeC.MoreauPagePalmatierRobert W. (2019), “JM as a Marketplace of Ideas,” Journal of Marketing, 83 (1), 1–7.
48.
NickersonRaymond S.BaddeleyAlanFreemanBarbara (1987), “Are People’s Estimates of What Other People Know Influenced by What They Themselves Know?” Acta Psychologica, 64 (3), 245–59.
49.
OliverBarbaraDallasMerry JoEckmanMolly (1998), “Communication of Empirical Knowledge: An Investigation of Readability and Quality of Research in Textiles and Apparel,” Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16 (1), 27–35.
50.
OppenheimerDaniel M. (2006), “Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20 (2), 139–56.
51.
ParkSang KyuSelaAner (2020), “Product Lineups: The More You Search, The Less You Find,” Journal of Consumer Research, 47 (1), 40–55.
52.
PeracchioLaura A.EscalasJennifer Edson (2008), “Tell Me a Story: Crafting and Publishing Research in Consumer Psychology,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18 (3), 197–204.
53.
PhamMichel Tuan (2013), “The Seven Sins of Consumer Psychology,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (4), 411–23.
54.
PinkerSteven (2014), The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century. New York: Penguin Books.
55.
RaginsBelle Rose (2012), “Editor’s Comments: Reflections on the Craft of Clear Writing,” Academy of Management Review, 37 (4), 493–501.
56.
RoeseNeal J.VohsKathleen D. (2012), “Hindsight Bias,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (5), 411–26.
57.
RoschEleanor (1999), “Principles of Categorization,” in Concepts: Core Readings, MargolisEricLaurenceStephen, eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 189–205.
58.
SadoskiMarkGoetzErnest T.RodriguezMaximo (2000), “Engaging Texts: Effects of Concreteness on Comprehensibility, Interest, and Recall in Four Text Types,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (1), 85–95.
59.
SawyerAlan G.LaranJulianoJunXu (2008), “The Readability of Marketing Journals: Are Award-Winning Articles Better Written?” Journal of Marketing, 72 (1), 108–17.
60.
SchimelJoshua (2012), Writing Science: How to Write Papers That Get Cited and Proposals That Get Funded. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61.
SchopenhauerArthur (1969), The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, PayneE.F.J., trans. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
62.
SegaranTobyHammerbacherJeff (2009), Beautiful Data: The Stories Behind Elegant Data Solutions. Sebatopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
63.
SlobinDan I. (1966), “Grammatical Transformations and Sentence Comprehension in Childhood and Adulthood,” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5 (3), 219–27.
64.
SpiggleSusan (1994), “Analysis and Interpretation of Qualitative Data in Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (3), 491–503.
65.
StremerschStefanCamachoNunoVannesteSofieVerniersIsabel (2015), “Unraveling Scientific Impact: Citation Types in Marketing Journals,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 32 (1), 64–77.
66.
StremerschStefanVerniersIsabelVerhoefPeter C. (2007), “The Quest for Citations: Drivers of Article Impact,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (3), 171–93
67.
TellisGerard J.ChandyRajesh K.AckermanDavid S. (1999), “In Search of Diversity: The Record of Major Marketing Journals,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (1), 120–31.
68.
TropeYaacov (2004), “Theory in Social Psychology: Seeing the Forest and the Trees,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (2), 193–200.
69.
TropeYaacovLibermanNira (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440–63.
70.
Van WeselMaartenWyattSallyten HaafJeroen (2014), “What a Difference a Colon Makes: How Superficial Factors Influence Subsequent Citation,” Scientometrics, 98 (3), 1601–15.
71.
WellsWilliam D. (1993), “Discovery-Oriented Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (4), 489–504.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
