We investigated linguistic factors that affect peoples’ trust in science and their commitment to follow evidence-based recommendations, crucial for limiting the spread of COVID-19. In an experiment (N = 617), we examined whether complex (vs. simple) scientific statements on mask-wearing can decrease trust in information and its sources, and hinder adherence to behavioral measures. In line with former research on social exclusion through complex language, we also examined whether complexity effects are mediated via feelings of social exclusion. Results indicate that negative effects of text complexity were present, but only for participants with a strong conspiracy mentality. This finding informs how to increase trust in science among individuals with a high conspiracy mentality, a population commonly known for its skepticism towards scientific evidence.
AugustT.KimL.ReineckeK.SmithN. A. (2020, November 16–20). Writing strategies for science communication: Data and computational analysis [Computational Social Science and Social Media; Language Generation]. 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Virtual Conference. https://homes.cs.washington.edu/∼taugust/files/Science_Communication_EMNLP2020.pdf
3.
Baram-TsabariA.LewensteinB. V. (2013). An instrument for assessing scientists’ written skills in public communication of science. Science Communication, 35(1), 56–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012440634
4.
BierwiaczonekK.KunstJ. R.PichO. (2020). Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories reduces social distancing over time. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 12(4), 1270–1285. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12223
BravermanJ. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35(5), 666–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321785
7.
BruderM.HaffkeP.NeaveN.NouripanahN.ImhoffR. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy mentality questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
8.
BurnsT. W.O’ConnorD. J.StocklmayerS. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004
9.
CheungI. W. (2017). Plain language to minimize cognitive load: A social justice perspective. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2759639
10.
CichockaA.MarchlewskaM.Golec de ZavalaA.OlechowskiM. (2016). ‘They will not control us’: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies. British Journal of Psychology, 107(3), 556–576. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12158
11.
CraftS.AshleyS.MakslA. (2017). News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Communication and the Public, 2(4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317725539
12.
CrossleyS. A.YangH. S.McNamaraD. S. (2014). What’s so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92–113. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1031308
13.
DechêneA.StahlC.HansenJ.WänkeM. (2009). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251
DohleS.WingenT.SchreiberM. (2020). Acceptance and adoption of protective measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of trust in politics and trust in science. Social Psychological Bulletin, 15(4), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4315
16.
DouglasK. M.SuttonR. M.CichockaA. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
17.
DuplagaM. (2020). The determinants of conspiracy beliefs related to the COVID-19 pandemic in a nationally representative sample of internet users. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 7818. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17217818
18.
EarnshawV. A.EatonL. A.KalichmanS. C.BrousseauN. M.HillE. C.FoxA. B. (2020). COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, health behaviors, and policy support. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 10(4), 850–856. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaa090
19.
EinsteinK. L.GlickD. M. (2015). Do I think BLS data are BS? The consequences of conspiracy theories. Political Behavior, 37(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9287-z
EntmanR. M. (1989). How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach. The Journal of Politics, 51(2), 347–370. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131346
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
24.
ForgasJ. P. (1994). Sad and guilty? Affective influences on the explanation of conflict in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.56
25.
ForgasJ. P. (2003). Affective influences on attitudes and judgments. In DavidsonR. J.SchererK. R.GoldsmithH. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 596–618). Oxford University Press.
26.
ForgasJ. P.EastR. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1362–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010
27.
FurnhamA.GunterB.GreenA. (1990). Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350040305
GraesserA. C.McNamaraD. S.LouwerseM. M.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195564
30.
GraeupnerD.ComanA. (2017). The dark side of meaning-making: How social exclusion leads to superstitious thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 69, 218–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.10.003
31.
GrasswickH. (2014). Climate change science and responsible trust: A situated approach. Hypatia, 29(3), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12090
32.
GreenJ. A.GonzagaA. M.CohenE. D.SpagnolettiC. L. (2014). Addressing health literacy through clear health communication: A training program for internal medicine residents. Patient Education and Counseling, 95(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.01.004
33.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford.
HillebrandtH.SebastianC.BlakemoreS. J. (2011). Experimentally induced social inclusion influences behavior on trust games. Cognitive Neuroscience, 2(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2010.515020
36.
HitlanR. T.KellyK. M.SchepmanS.SchneiderK. T.ZárateM. A. (2006). Language exclusion and the consequences of perceived ostracism in the workplace. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.10.1.56
37.
IllesJ.MoserM. A.McCormickJ. B.RacineE.BlakesleeS.CaplanA.HaydenE. C.IngramJ.LohwaterT.McKnightP.NicholsonC.PhillipsA.SauvéK. D.SnellE.WeissS. (2010). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773
38.
ImhoffR.BruderM. (2014). Speaking (un–) truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality, 28(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1930
39.
ImhoffR.LambertyP.KleinO. (2018). Using power as a negative cue: How conspiracy mentality affects epistemic trust in sources of historical knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(9), 1364–1379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218768779
JostJ. T.LedgerwoodA.HardinC. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00056.x
43.
KellerP. A.BlockL. G. (1999). The effect of affect-based dissonance versus cognition-based dissonance on motivated reasoning and health-related persuasion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5(3), 302–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.5.3.302
44.
KimB. S.LeeD. W.BaeJ. N.ChangS. M.KimS.KimK. W.RimH. D.ParkJ. E.ChoM. J. (2014). Impact of illiteracy on depression symptomatology in community-dwelling older adults. International Psychogeriatrics, 26(10), 1669–1678. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610214001094
45.
KimD.MishraS.WangZ.SinghS. N. (2016). Insidious effects of syntactic complexity: Are ads targeting older adults too complex to remember?Journal of Advertising, 45(4), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1262301
46.
KossowskaM.JaśkoK.Bar-TalY.SzastokM. (2012). The relationship between need for closure and memory for schema-related information among younger and older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(1–2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.632617
47.
LaMarreH. L.LandrevilleK. D.BeamM. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208330904
48.
LantianA.MullerD.NurraC.KleinO.BerjotS.PantaziM. (2018). Stigmatized beliefs: Conspiracy theories, anticipated negative evaluation of the self, and fear of social exclusion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2498
49.
LeeE.SuttonR. M.HartleyB. L. (2016). From scientific article to press release to media coverage: Advocating alcohol abstinence and democratising risk in a story about alcohol and pregnancy. Health, Risk & Society, 18(5–6), 247–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2016.1229758
50.
LeeT. T. (2018). Virtual theme collection: “Trust and credibility in news media”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017749244
51.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PloS One, 8(10), e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134773
52.
LowreyT. M. (1998). The effects of syntactic complexity on advertising persuasiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_04
53.
MacIntyreP. D.BurnsC.JessomeA. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01141.x
54.
MaleckiK.KeatingJ. A.SafdarN. (2020). Crisis communication and public perception of COVID-19 risk in the era of social media. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 72(4), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa758
55.
MassonM. E.WaldronM. A. (1994). Comprehension of legal contracts by non-experts: Effectiveness of plain language redrafting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350080107
56.
MeppelinkC. S.SmitE. G.BuurmanB. M.van WeertJ. C. M. (2015). Should we be afraid of simple messages? The effects of text difficulty and illustrations in people with low or high health literacy. Health Communication, 30(12), 1181–1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1037425
57.
MesmerH. A.HiebertE. H. (2015). Third graders’ reading proficiency reading texts varying in complexity and length: Responses of students in an urban, high-needs school. Journal of Literacy Research, 47(4), 473–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X16631923
58.
MeyerP. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500301
59.
MorganM.CollinsW.SparksG.WelchJ. (2018). Identifying relevant anti-science perceptions to improve science-based communication: The negative perceptions of science scale. Social Sciences, 7(4), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7040064
60.
MukhtarS. (2021). Psychology and politics of COVID-19 misinfodemics: Why and how do people believe in misinfodemics?International Sociology, 36(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580920948807
NadelsonL. S.HardyK. K. (2015). Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8, 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-015-0037-4
63.
NewmanE. J.SansonM.MillerE. K.Quigley-McBrideA.FosterJ. L.BernsteinD. M.GarryM. (2014). People with easier to pronounce names promote truthiness of claims. PloS One, 9(2), e88671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088671
64.
NewmanE. J.SchwarzN. (2018). Good sound, good research: How audio quality influences perceptions of the research and researcher. Science Communication, 40(2), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018759345
65.
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041
66.
OliverJ. E.WoodT. (2014). Medical conspiracy theories and health behaviors in the United States. JAMA Internal Medicine, 174(5), 817–818. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.190
67.
OppenheimerD. M. (2006). Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1178
68.
PalamenghiL.BarelloS.BocciaS.GraffignaG. (2020). Mistrust in biomedical research and vaccine hesitancy: The forefront challenge in the battle against COVID-19 in Italy. European Journal of Epidemiology, 35(8), 785–788. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-020-00675-8
69.
PetelinR. (2010). Considering plain language: Issues and initiatives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011037964
70.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.GoldmanR. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
71.
PirlottA. G.MacKinnonD. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012
72.
Plavén-SigrayP.MathesonG. J.SchifflerB. C.ThompsonW. H. (2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. Elife, 6, e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725
73.
PlohlN.MusilB. (2021). Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: The critical role of trust in science. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988
74.
PoonK. T.ChenZ.WongW. Y. (2020). Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219898944
75.
PotterW. J. (2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Sage.
76.
PremjiS.MessingK.LippelK. (2008). Broken English, broken bones? Mechanisms linking language proficiency and occupational health in a Montreal garment factory. International Journal of Health Services, 38(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.38.1.a
77.
PummererL.BöhmR.LillehotL.WinterK.ZettlerI.SassenbergK. (2021). Societal effects of Covid-19 conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211000217
78.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
RobertsC. (2010). Correlations among variables in message and messenger credibility scales. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376310
81.
RomerD.JamiesonK. H. (2020). Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the US. Social Science & Medicine, 263, 113356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356
82.
RubinA. M. (2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In BryantJ.ZillmannD. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 525–548). Lawrence Erlbaum.
83.
RudertS. C.GreifenederR. (2016). When it’s okay that I don’t play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 955–969. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216649606
84.
RyanT.HendersonM. (2018). Feeling feedback: Students’ emotional responses to educator feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456
85.
SchindlerT. M. (2019). Ansätze für barrierefreie kommunikation im medizinisch-pharmazeutischen bereich. In MaaßC.RinkI. (Eds.), Handbuch barrierefreie kommunikation (pp. 657–678). Frank & Timme.
86.
SchwarzN.JalbertM.NoahT.ZhangL. (2020). Metacognitive experiences as information: Processing fluency in consumer judgment and decision making. Consumer Psychology Review, 4(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1067
87.
SeeY. H. M.PettyR. E.EvansL. M. (2009). The impact of perceived message complexity and need for cognition on information processing and attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 880–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.006
88.
SharonA. J.Baram-TsabariA. (2013). 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
89.
SiciliaM.RuizS.MunueraJ. L. (2005). Effects of interactivity in a web site: The moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639202
TaylorB. M. (1979). Good and poor readers’ recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862967909547343
92.
TödtmannC. (2012). Ärzte und patienten – zwei welten begegnen sich. In HaxP.-M.Hax-SchoppenhorstT. (Eds.), Kommunikation mit patienten in der chirurgie. Praxisempfehlungen für Ärzte aller operativen fächer (pp. 57–62). Kohlhammer.
93.
UnkelbachC.GreifenederR. (2018). Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.010
94.
van ProoijenJ. W. (2017). Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3301
van ProoijenJ. W.van LangeP. A. (2014). The social dimension of belief in conspiracy theories. In van ProoijenJ. W.van LangeP. A. (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders (pp. 237–253). Cambridge University Press.
97.
VermeirI.Van KenhoveP.HendrickxH. (2002). The influence of need for closure on consumer’s choice behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23(6), 703–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00135-6
98.
WeingartP.GuentherL. (2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(05), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301
99.
WilliamsN.OgdenJ. (2004). The impact of matching the patient’s vocabulary: A randomized control trial. Family Practice, 21(6), 630–635. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmh610
100.
Williams-PiehotaP.SchneiderT. R.PizarroJ.MowadL.SaloveyP. (2003). Matching health messages to information-processing styles: Need for cognition and mammography utilization. Health Communication, 15(4), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1504_01
101.
WolfM. S.WilliamsM. V.ParkerR. M.ParikhN. S.NowlanA. W.BakerD. W. (2007). Patients’ shame and attitudes toward discussing the results of literacy screening. Journal of Health Communication, 12(8), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701672173
102.
WuA. W.ConnorsC.EverlyG. S. (2020). COVID-19: Peer support and crisis communication strategies to promote institutional resilience. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(12), 822–823. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1236
103.
ZabalA.MartinS.KlaukienA.RammstedtB.BaumertJ.KliemeE. (2013). Grundlegende kompetenzen der erwachsenen bevölkerung in deutschland im internationalen vergleich. In RammstedtB. (Ed.), Grundlegende kompetenzen erwachsener im internationalen vergleich: Ergebnisse von PIAAC 2012 (pp. 31–76). Waxmann.
ZürnM.TopolinskiS. (2017). When trust comes easy: Articulatory fluency increases transfers in the trust game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.02.016
106.
ZwingmannJ.BaileW. F.SchmierJ. W.BernhardJ.KellerM. (2017). Effects of patient-centered communication on anxiety, negative affect, and trust in the physician in delivering a cancer diagnosis: A randomized, experimental study. Cancer, 123(16), 3167–3175. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.306
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.
