Guided by feelings-as-information theory, this experiment (N = 643), based in the United States, tested whether the use of jargon and infographics within messages designed to explain the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines affected behavioral intentions to vaccinate. The results revealed that the presence of jargon was associated with a difficult processing experience, message resistance, decreased perceptions of message credibility, and reduced intentions to get the COVID-19 vaccine. That said, when an infographic was integrated into the jargon message, these negative relationships went away and the presence of jargon no longer indirectly impacted intention to vaccinate. This experiment demonstrates that in contexts where jargon use exists, the use of an infographic can counteract some of the negative effects of a difficult processing experience.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50(2): 179–211.
2.
AjzenI (2011) The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology and Health26(9): 1113–1127.
3.
AlterALOppenheimerDM (2009) Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review13(3): 219–235.
4.
AppelmanASundarSS (2016) Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly93(1): 59–79.
5.
Baram-TsabariAWolfsonOYosefRChapnikNBrillASegevE (2020) Jargon use in Public Understanding of Science papers over three decades. Public Understanding of Science29(6): 644–654.
6.
BicenHBeheshtiM (2017) The psychological impact of infographics in education. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience8(4): 99–108.
7.
BrooksCF (2017) Student identity and aversions to science: A study of translation in higher education. Journal of Language and Social Psychology36(1): 112–126.
8.
BullockOMColón AmillDShulmanHCDixonGN (2019) Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 845–853.
9.
ByrneSHartPS (2009) The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. Annals of the International Communication Association33(1): 3–37.
ChmielewskiMKuckerSC (2020) An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science11(4): 464–473
12.
CohenJ (1992) A power primer. Quantitative Methods in Psychology112(1): 155–159.
13.
DeanC (2009) Am I Making Myself Clear? A Scientist’s Guide to Talking to the Public. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
DunlapJCLowenthalPR (2016) Getting graphic about infographics: Design lessons learned from popular infographics. Journal of Visual Literacy35(1): 42–59.
15.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Garcia-RetameroRCokelyET (2013) Communicating health risks with visual aids. Current Directions in Psychological Science22(5): 392–399.
18.
GerendMAShepherdJEMondayKA (2008) Behavioral frequency moderates the effects of message framing on HPV vaccine acceptability. Annals of Behavioral Medicine35(2): 221–229.
19.
HayesAF (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
HirstR (2003) Scientific jargon, good and bad. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication33(3): 201–229.
21.
JohnsonCYSteckelbergASunLHMcGinleyLChiuA (2021) Your questions about coronavirus vaccines, answered. The Washington Post, 21April, p. 2.
22.
KostykALeonhardtJMNiculescuM (2019) Processing fluency scale development for consumer research. International Journal of Market Research63: 353–367.
23.
KriegerJLGalloisC (2017) Translating science: Using the science of language to explicate the language of science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology36(1): 3–13.
24.
LazardAAtkinsonL (2015) Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication37(1): 6–33.
25.
LeeEJKimYW (2016) Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media and Society18(8): 1579–1598.
26.
LeeSLeeNDockterCE (2021) Effects of message presentation type on gm food risk perception, similarity judgment, and attitude. Health Communication36: 1666–1676.
27.
LuoMHancockJTMarkowitzDM (2020) Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 13 April. DOI: 10.1177/0093650220921321.
28.
McDonnellLBarkerMKWiemanC (2016) Concepts first, jargon second improves student articulation of understanding. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education44(1): 12–19.
29.
MarkowitzDMHancockJT (2016) Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. Journal of Language and Social Psychology35(4): 435–445.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJEyalKLemusDRMccannRM (2003) Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association27(1): 293–335.
32.
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(1): 36–66.
33.
OttenJJChengKDrewnowskiA (2015) Infographics and public policy: Using data visualization to convey complex information. Health Affairs34(11): 1901–1907.
34.
PettyREBriñolPTormalaZLWegenerDT (2007) The role of metacognition in social judgment. In: HigginsETKruglanskiAW (eds) Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, 2nd edn.New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 254–284.
35.
PettyREWegenerDTFabrigarLR (1997) Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology48: 609–647.
PlaxcoKW (2010) The art of writing science. Protein Science : A Publication of the Protein Society19(12): 2261–2266.
38.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(2): 243–281.
39.
RakedzonTSegevEChapnikNYosefRBaram-TsabariA (2017) Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLoS ONE12(8): e0181742.
40.
SchwarzN (2006) Feelings, fit, and funny effects: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of Marketing Research43(1): 20–23.
41.
SchwarzN (2010) Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences. In: MesquitaBBarrettLFSmithER (eds) The Mind in Context. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 105–125.
42.
SchwarzN (2011) Feelings-as-information theory. In: Van LangeAKruglanskiAHigginsET (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 289–308.
43.
SchwarzN (2015) Metacognition. In: MikulincerMShaverPRBorgidaEBarghJA (eds) APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 1 Attitudes and Social Cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 203–229.
44.
SharonAJBaram-TsabariA (2014) Measuring mumbo jumbo: A preliminary quantification of the use of jargon in science communication. Public Understanding of Science23(5): 528–546.
45.
ShulmanHCBullockOM (2019) Using metacognitive cues to amplify message content: A new direction in strategic communication. Annals of the International Communication Association43(1): 24–39.
46.
ShulmanHCBullockOM (2020) Don’t dumb it down: The effects of jargon in COVID-19 crisis communication. PLoS ONE15(10): e0239524.
47.
ShulmanHCSweitzerMD (2018) Varying metacognition through public opinion questions: How language can affect political engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology37(2): 224–237.
48.
ShulmanHCDixonGNBullockOMColón AmillD (2020) The effects of jargon on processing fluency, self-perceptions, and scientific engagement. Journal of Language and Social Psychology39(5–6): 579–597.
49.
SongHSchwarzN (2009) If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: Fluency, familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science20(2): 135–138.
50.
TolochkoPSongHBoomgaardenH (2019) “That looks hard!”: Effects of objective and perceived textual complexity on factual and structural political knowledge. Political Communication36(4): 609–628.
51.
WebbTLSheeranP (2006) Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin132(2): 249–268.
52.
WilloughbySDJohnsonKStermanL (2020) Quantifying scientific jargon. Public Understanding of Science29(6): 634–643.
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.
