Reading dies in complexity: Online news consumers prefer simple writing.

Over 30,000 field experiments with The Washington Post and Upworthy showed that readers prefer simpler headlines (e.g., more common words and more readable writing) over more complex ones. A follow-up mechanism experiment showed that readers from the general public paid more attention to, and processed more deeply, the simpler headlines compared to the complex headlines. That is, a signal detection study suggested readers were guided by a simpler-writing heuristic, such that they skipped over relatively complex headlines to focus their attention on the simpler headlines. Notably, a sample of professional writers, including journalists, did not show this pattern, suggesting that those writing the news may read it differently from those consuming it. Simplifying writing can help news outlets compete in the competitive online attention economy, and simple language can make news more approachable to online readers.

Using infographics to reduce the negative effects of jargon on intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19.

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.

Eye Movements Predict Large-Scale Voting Decisions.

More than 100 countries allow people to vote directly on policies in direct democracy elections (e.g., 2016 Brexit referendum). Politicians are often responsible for writing ballot language, and voters frequently encounter ballot measures that are difficult to understand. We examined whether eye movements from a small group of individuals can predict the consequences of ballot language on large-scale voting decisions. Across two preregistered studies (Study 1: N = 120 registered voters, Study 2: N = 120 registered voters), we monitored laboratory participants' eye movements as they read real ballot measures. We found that eye-movement responses associated with difficulties in language comprehension predicted aggregate voting decisions to abstain from voting and vote against ballot measures in U.S. elections (total number of votes cast = 137,661,232). Eye movements predicted voting decisions beyond what was accounted for by widely used measures of language difficulty. This finding demonstrates a new way of linking eye movements to out-of-sample aggregate-level behaviors.

The predictive utility of word familiarity for online engagements and funding.

Metacognitive frameworks such as processing fluency often suggest people respond more favorably to simple and common language versus complex and technical language. It is easier for people to process information that is simple and nontechnical compared to complex information, therefore leading to more engagement with targets. In two studies covering 12 field samples (total n = 1,064,533), we establish and replicate this simpler-is-better phenomenon by demonstrating people engage more with nontechnical language when giving their time and attention (e.g., simple online language tends to receive more social engagements). However, people respond to complex language when giving their money (e.g., complex language within charitable giving campaigns and grant abstracts tend to receive more money). This evidence suggests people engage with the heuristic of complex language differently depending on a time or money target. These results underscore language as a lens into social and psychological processes and computational methods to measure text patterns at scale.

Don't dumb it down: The effects of jargon in COVID-19 crisis communication.

Experts are typically advised to avoid jargon when communicating with the general public, but previous research has not established whether avoiding jargon is necessary in a crisis. Using the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic as a backdrop, this online survey experiment (N = 393) examined the effect of jargon use across three different topics that varied in situational urgency: COVID-19 (high urgency), flood risk (low urgency), and federal emergency policy (control). Results revealed that although the use of jargon led to more difficult processing and reduced persuasion for the two less-urgent topics (flood risk, emergency policy), there was no effect of jargon in the COVID-19 condition. Theoretically, these findings suggest that the motivation to process information is an important moderator for crisis communication in particular and science communication in general. Practically, these findings suggest that science communicators, during times of crisis, do not need to "dumb down" their language in the same way they should during non-crises.

Jargon as a barrier to effective science communication: Evidence from metacognition.

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.

Risk perceptions of people living with HIV/AIDS: how similarity affects optimistic bias.

Little as known about how people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWH/A) assess their vulnerability to non-HIV related risk factors, and how this judgement is affected by perceived similarity with others. This study indicates not only that PLWH/A are optimistically biased in their risk pereceptions, but also that they do not use others' HIV status to assess similarity. Perceived similarity with others, however, affects risk judgements: greater the perceived similarity with others, greater the tendency to judge others' vulnerability relative to one's own. Findings point to the importance of considering similarity as a key variable in understanding how risk assessments are made by persons with chronic health conditions.