In this experiment (N = 650), we examine the negative consequences of jargon on individuals’ perceptions of emerging scientific technology and aim to explain these effects. We find that the presence of jargon impairs people’s ability to process scientific information, and that this impairment leads to greater motivated resistance to persuasion, increased risk perceptions, and lower support for technology adoption. These findings suggest that the use of jargon undermines efforts to inform and persuade the public through the cognitive mechanism of metacognition.
BaronN (2010) Escape from the Ivory Tower: A Guide to Making Your Science Matter. Washington, DC: Island Press.
2.
BriñolPPettyRE (2004) Self-validation processes: The role of thought confidence in persuasion. In: HaddockGMaioG (eds) Contemporary Perspectives on the Psychology of Attitudes. London: Psychology Press, pp. 205–226.
3.
BriñolPTormalaZPettyR (2013) Ease and persuasion: Multiple processes, meanings, and effects. In: Unkelbach C and GreifenederR (eds) The Experience of Thinking: How the Fluency of Mental Processes Influences Cognition and Behavior. London: Psychology Press, pp. 101–118.
4.
CarpenterCJBosterFJ (2013) Modeling the effects of processing effort and ability in response to persuasive message arguments. Communication Quarterly61: 413–430.
5.
CohenJ (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin112: 155–159.
6.
DeanC (2009) Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
DragojevicMGilesH (2016) I don’t like you because you’re hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research42: 396–420.
8.
GoldbergMHCarmichaelCL (2017) Language complexity, belief-consistency, and the evaluation of policies. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology2: 1–17.
9.
GruppGHeiderM (1975) Non-overlapping disciplinary vocabularies. In: DaySB (ed.) Communication of Scientific Information. Basel: Karger, pp. 28–36.
10.
HayesA (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
JacksonSJacobsS (1983) Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Human Communication Research9: 169–181.
12.
KahanDPetersEWittlinMSlovicPOuelletteLLBramanD, et al. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change2: 732–735.
13.
MellorF (2018) Book Review: Kathleen Hall Jamieson, DanKahanDietram A.Scheufele (eds), The Oxford Handbook of The Science of Science Communication. Public Understanding of Science27: 750–752.
14.
Moyer-GuséENabiR (2010) Explaining the effects of narrative in an entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research36: 26–52.
15.
NelsonTOKruglanskiAWJostJ (1998) Knowing thyself and others: Progress in metacognitive social psychology. In: LoriesGDardenneB (eds) Metacognition: Cognitive and Social Dimensions. London: SAGE, pp. 69–89.
16.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658: 36–66.
17.
PettyRBriñolPTormalaZWegenerDT (2007) The role of metacognition in social judgments. In: KruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 254–284.
18.
ScharrerLRupieperYStadtlerMBrommeR (2017) When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts. Public Understanding of Science26: 1003–1018.
19.
SchwartzBLMetcalfeJ (1994) Methodological problems and pitfalls in the study of human metacognition. In: ShimamuraAP (ed.) Metacognition: Knowing about Knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 137–156.
20.
SchwarzN (2006) Feelings, fit, and funny effects: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of Marketing Research43: 20–23.
21.
SchwarzN (2010) Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. In: MesquitaBBarrettLFSmithER (eds) The Mind in Context. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 105–125.
22.
SchwarzN (2015) Metacognition. In: MikulincerMShaverPRBorgidaEBarghJA (eds) APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition. Washington, DC: APA, pp. 203–229.
23.
SharonABaram-TsabariA (2014) Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science23: 528–546.
24.
ShulmanHCBullockOM (2019) Using metacognitive cues to amplify message content: A new direction in strategic communication. Annals of the International Communication Association43: 24–39.
25.
ShulmanHCSweitzerMD (2018a) Advancing framing theory: Designing an equivalency frame to improve political information processing. Human Communication Research44: 155–175.
26.
ShulmanHCSweitzerMD (2018b) Varying metacognition through public opinion questions: How language can affect political engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology37: 224–237.
27.
SongHSchwarzN (2009) If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science20: 135–138.
28.
SweitzerMDShulmanHC (2018) The effects of metacognition in survey research: Experimental, cross-sectional, and content-analytic evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly82: 745–768.
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.
