The Effects of Jargon on Processing Fluency,Self-Perceptions,and Scientific Engagement

Abstract

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.

Keywords

metacognition processing fluency jargon self-perception science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alter

A. L.

Oppenheimer

D. 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

Asprey

(2010). Plain language for lawyers (4th ed.). Federation Press.

Bishop

Oldendick

Tuchfarber

(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

Bonus

J. A.

Mares

M. 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

Brooks

C. 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

Bucci

(2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication science. In Bucci

Trench

(Eds.), Handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 57-76). Routledge.

Bullock

O. M.

Colón Amill

Shulman

H. C.

Dixon

G. 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

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://www.ime.usp.br/~abe/lista/pdfn45sGokvRe.pdf

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659-688. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x

10.

Dunwoody

Ryan

(1985). Scientific barriers to the popularization of science in the mass media. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 26-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2985.tb0188.x

11.

Giles

(2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge University Press.

12.

Giles

Maass

(2016). Advances in intergroup communication. Peter Lang.

13.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

14.

Howard

Jacobson

K. L.

Kripalani

(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

15.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). The mediation myth. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 37(4), 202-213. http://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2015.1049349

16.

Koriat

Levy-Sadot

(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.

Krieger

J. L.

Gallois

(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.

Markowitz

D. M.

Hancock

J. T.

(2017). Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(4), 435-445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15614605

19.

Markus

(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.

Nabatchi

(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.

Nagler

R. H.

Ramanadhan

Minsky

Viswanath

(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.

Niemi

R. G.

Craig

S. C.

Mattei

(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.

Petty

R. E.

Brinol

Tormala

Z. L.

Wegener

D. T.

(2007). The role of metacognition in social judgment. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 254-284). Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2008.03.002

24.

Rice

R. E.

Giles

(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.

Schwarz

(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.

Schwarz

(2010). Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. In Mesquita

Barrett

L. F.

Smith

E. R.

(Eds.), The mind in context (pp. 105-125). Guilford Press.

27.

Schwarz

(2011). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van Lange

Kruglanski

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 289-308). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15

28.

Schwarz

(2015). Metacognition. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Borgida

Bargh

J. 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.

Schwarz

Bless

Strack

Klumpp

Rittenauer-Schatka

Simons

(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.

Schwarz

Schuman

(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.

Sharon

A. J.

Baram-Tsabari

(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.

Shockley

Fairdosi

A. 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.

Shulman

H. C.

Bullock

O. 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.

Shulman

H. C.

Sweitzer

M. 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.

Shulman

H. C.

Sweitzer

M. 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.

Slater

M. D.

Peter

Valkenberg

(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.

Sweitzer

M. D.

Shulman

H. 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.

Yang

Z. J.

Kahlor

(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.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB