In this experiment (N = 650), we integrate ideas from the literatures on metacognition and self-perception to explain why the use of jargon negatively affects engagement with science topics. We offer empirical evidence that the presence of jargon disrupts people’s ability to fluently process scientific information, even when definitions for the jargon terms are provided. We find that jargon use affects individuals’ social identification with the science community and, in turn, affects self-reports of scientific interest and perceived understanding. Taken together, this work advances our knowledge about the broad effects of metacognition and offers implications for how the language of science may influence nonexpert audiences’ engagement with complex topics in ways beyond comprehension.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
2.
AspreyM. (2010). Plain language for lawyers (4th ed.). Federation Press.
3.
BishopG.OldendickR.TuchfarberA. (1984). What must my interest in politics be if I just told you “I don’t know?”Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(2), 510-519. https://doi.org/10.1086/268846
4.
BonusJ. A.MaresM. L. (2018). When the sun sings science, are children left in the dark? Representations of science in children’s television and their effects on children’s learning. Human Communication Research, 44(4), 449-472. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy009
5.
BrooksC. F. (2017). Student identity and aversions to science: A study of translation in higher education. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(1), 112-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16663259
6.
BucciM. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication science. In BucciM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Routledge.
7.
BullockO. M.Colón AmillD.ShulmanH. C.DixonG. N. (2019). Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 845-853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519865687
GilesH. (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press.
12.
GilesH.MaassA. (2016). Advances in intergroup communication. Peter Lang.
13.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
14.
HowardT.JacobsonK. L.KripalaniS. (2013). Doctor talk: Physicians’ use of clear verbal communication. Journal of Health Communication, 18(8), 991-1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.757398
KoriatA.Levy-SadotR. (2001). The combined contributions of the cue-familiarity and accessibility heuristics to feelings of knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(1), 34-53. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.27.1.34
17.
KriegerJ. L.GalloisC. (2017). Translating science: Using the science of language to explicate the language of science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16663256
18.
MarkowitzD. M.HancockJ. T. (2017). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(4), 435-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15614605
19.
MarkusH. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63
20.
NabatchiT. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of deliberative democracy for public administration. American Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 376-399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009356467
21.
NaglerR. H.RamanadhanS.MinskyS.ViswanathK. (2013). Recruitment and retention for community-based ehealth interventions with populations of low socioeconomic position: Strategies and challenges. Journal of Communication, 63(1), 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12008
22.
NiemiR. G.CraigS. C.MatteiF. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407-1413. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963953
23.
PettyR. E.BrinolP.TormalaZ. L.WegenerD. T. (2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 254-284). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2008.03.002
24.
RiceR. E.GilesH. (2017). The contexts and dynamics of science communication and language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(1), 127-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16663257
25.
SchwarzN. (2006). Feelings, fit, and funny effects: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 20-23. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.20
26.
SchwarzN. (2010). Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. In MesquitaB.BarrettL. F.SmithE. R. (Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 105-125). Guilford Press.
27.
SchwarzN. (2011). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289-308). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15
28.
SchwarzN. (2015). Metacognition. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R.BorgidaE.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of personality and social psychology. Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 203-229). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-006
29.
SchwarzN.BlessH.StrackF.KlumppG.Rittenauer-SchatkaH.SimonsA. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 195-202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.195
30.
SchwarzN.SchumanH. (1997). Political knowledge, attribution, and inferred interest in politics: The operation of buffer items. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9(2), 191-195. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/9.2.191
31.
SharonA. J.Baram-TsabariA. (2014). Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), 528-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512469916
32.
ShockleyE.FairdosiA. S. (2015). Power to the people? Psychological mechanisms of disengagement from direct democracy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 579-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614568159
33.
ShulmanH. C.BullockO. M. (2019). Using metacognitive cues to amplify message content: A new direction in strategic communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1570472
34.
ShulmanH. C.SweitzerM. D. (2018a). Advancing framing theory: Designing an equivalency frame to improve political information processing. Human Communication Research, 44(2), 155-175. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqx006
35.
ShulmanH. C.SweitzerM. D. (2018b). Varying metacognition through public opinion questions: How language can affect political engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(2), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17707557
36.
SlaterM. D.PeterJ.ValkenbergP. (2015). Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679170
37.
SweitzerM. D.ShulmanH. C. (2018). The effects of metacognition in survey research: Experimental, cross-sectional, and content-analytic evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(4), 745-768. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy034
38.
YangZ. J.KahlorL. (2013). What, me worry? The role of affect in information seeking and avoidance. Science Communication, 35(2), 189-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012441873
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.
