Left Out—Feelings of Social Exclusion Incite Individuals with High Conspiracy Mentality to Reject Complex Scientific Messages

Abstract

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.

Keywords

science communication health communication linguistic complexity trust social exclusion conspiracy mentality COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of science communication for public health (Malecki et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2020). This is because successful handling of the pandemic requires citizens to conform to multiple voluntary measures that can prevent the spread of the virus. The effects of these soft policies are largely based on citizens’ trust in scientific guidance and their adherence to scientific recommendations. Investigating which factors make scientific communication trustworthy and persuasive is thus a major challenge that, once addressed, can help curb the pandemic.

Science communication is defined as the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue to produce one or more of the following personal responses to science: awareness, enjoyment, interest, opinion-forming, and understanding (Burns et al., 2003). To reach other scholars, scientists publish their findings on scientific platforms such as journals and formulate their message according to the discipline standards, usually employing professional jargon. This communication is directed towards other members of the scientific community, who by their training, have the skills required to understand and evaluate the merit of the empirical or theoretical articles. However, science communication can also be directed to the lay public. For this audience, scientific jargon can be hard to understand.

This difficulty can decrease the understanding of scientific findings and reduce trust in related statements and recommendations (e.g., Brashier & Marsh, 2020; Unkelbach & Greifeneder, 2018). Effective science communication, however, strongly depends on trust (Weingart & Guenther, 2016). Previous studies have suggested that low trust in science is associated with low acceptance of a wide range of scientific information, such as statements on evolution (Nadelson & Hardy, 2015), climate change (Grasswick, 2014), and vaccination (Palamenghi et al., 2020). Achieving good communication between the scientific community and the lay public is even more important against the background of general skepticism towards science and the extensive spread of conspiracy theories during the COVID-19 pandemic (Bierwiaczonek et al., 2020; Earnshaw et al., 2020; Pummerer et al., 2021).

Given that effective communication between the scientific community and the lay public can contribute to slowing down infections and decreasing death rates related to the COVID-19 pandemic, this research investigates the influence of complex versus simple scientific texts on trust in scientific messages and on adherence to behavioral measures. We also examine how reading a complex message affects individuals’ feelings of social exclusion and to what extent language complexity might specifically affect participants who have a strong conspiracy mentality. To increase the inclusion of the latter group into the evidence-based discourse around science, we end this article with an appeal for the use of more readable scientific language.

Linguistic Complexity as a Stumbling Block in Science Communication

Over the past decades, research has repeatedly shown that, compared to complex language, the use of plain or simple language positively affects text comprehension (e.g., Crossley et al., 2014; Masson & Waldron, 1994; Mesmer & Hiebert, 2015; Taylor, 1979), recall (Kim et al., 2016; Furnham et al., 1990; Lowrey, 1998), and message persuasion (El Kihal et al., 2020; Lowrey, 1998).¹ Furthermore, simple versus complex language can affect another key variable of communication: trust. People tend to believe more in information that is easy (vs. hard) to process (Brashier & Marsh, 2020; Unkelbach & Greifeneder, 2018). In a study by Rennekamp (2012), after receiving disclosures on stock corporations, participants showed stronger reliance on information that was expressed in a simple rather than complex manner. Similarly, an online survey conducted by Ermakova et al. (2014) indicated that perceived readability of a website's privacy policy strongly affected participants’ trust in the online service. Lower linguistic complexity not only helps raise trust in the message but can also raise trust in people and organizations to whom it is related. Accordingly, participants in different economic games have been found to trust fictitious players with easy-to-read names more than those with complex names (Zürn & Topolinski, 2017). Similar findings have been reported in the context of health communication, for instance in consultations between doctors and patients. When doctors tailored their vocabulary to their patients’ instead of maintaining technical terminology, the patients experienced the consultation as more comfortable, agreed more with their doctors, and were more willing to comply (Williams & Ogden, 2004).

Thus, language barriers can have detrimental effects on people's trust in health information from the media. In this vein, academic language with many scientific terms, abstract concepts, and sophisticated structures can be seen as complex to lay people (Hayes, 1992) and lead to low trust in the conveyed information. Although a certain degree of complexity is unavoidable in science given its specialized nature, it should be formulated to be as readable as possible, as it is an important pillar for people to follow scientific recommendations. This has been evident more than ever during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, trust in science has also been identified as an important key variable for public adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures (Dohle et al., 2020; Plohl & Musil, 2021). Recent research, however, has shown that scientific texts become more rather than less complex over time (Plavén-Sigray et al., 2017).

The aim of this research is to examine the effects of linguistic complexity in the context of scientific statements regarding mask-wearing. In line with the above-cited literature, we expect that complex (vs. simple) scientific statements on the effectiveness of mask-wearing will reduce participants’ trust in the message, trust in science, and adherence to the statement (Main Hypothesis).

Feelings of Social Exclusion as Mediator of the Effect of Linguistic Complexity

Health communication is often referred to as “expert2expert” communication as it is expressed in a difficult-to-understand jargon including many technical and medical terms (e.g., Schindler, 2019). A good example is the medical visit in hospitals: a group of (future) physicians accompanied by the head physician typically stands around the bed of a patient and talks about their illness in medical jargon, while the patient often feels like an outsider (Tödtmann, 2012). To improve health communication, there has been a plain language movement in the medical field, similar to other areas of public life (see, e.g., Adler, 2012; Cheung, 2017; Petelin, 2010; Schindler, 2019). As a result, universities and hospitals are increasingly offering communication trainings for medical professionals (e.g., Green et al., 2014). Another achievement of the medical plain language movement was that the package inserts of pharmaceutical products have been required to be expressed “in such a way as to be clear and understandable” since 2001 (see Directive, 2001/83/EC). The use of plain language aims to especially address people with low literacy skills by using shorter sentences, a simpler syntax, and more familiar words. Such a reduction of language complexity in official or medical language is intended to decrease the social exclusion of linguistically marginalized groups (see Adler, 2012; Cheung, 2017). Easier language allows reaching out to people who may struggle with complex formulations, for example people with lower cognitive abilities, learning disabilities, or lower literacy (Meppelink et al., 2015). Lower literacy, or less experience with complex scientific messages can contribute to feelings of being left out from the dialogue and result in disengagement with the message.

Being confronted with relatively complex language can even lead to feelings of social exclusion in a person. For example, children and university students who had to learn a second language after moving to a new country reported greater feelings of being socially excluded due to low language skills (MacIntyre et al., 2011) and reacted more sensitively to teacher's feedback (Ryan & Henderson, 2018). Similarly, Hitlan et al. (2006) found that employees felt socially excluded when facing English as a foreign language at their workplace. The low language proficiency, in turn, was associated with an increased risk of occupational health problems (Premji et al., 2008). A similar pattern of results has been identified in the field of (il)literacy research. A large-scale study of elderly people in South Korea by Kim et al. (2014) revealed that illiterate respondents were up to three times more likely to have depression symptoms compared to literate individuals. This effect was especially pronounced on factors related to self-esteem. In another study by Wolf et al. (2007) patients who were confronted with low scores on a medical literacy test reported increased negative emotions such as shame and embarrassment (compared to patients with higher literacy levels). Being exposed to subjectively complex and hard-to-understand language can thus lead to negative feelings related to social exclusion, such as lower fulfillment of essential personal needs like the need for positive self-esteem or belongingness.

Given that scientific statements often have a complexity that exceeds the average reading skills of the majority of people in most countries (see Zabal et al. (2013) for Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies results on adult literacy), it should be considered that this language may have an exclusionary effect for a large part of the general population. We think that the use of complex (vs. simple) scientific language can be perceived as a negative cue for many lay people, as they may become aware of their comprehension difficulties in a specific topic. As a consequence, and in line with the findings outlined above, this subtle form of linguistic exclusion is expected to evoke feelings of social exclusion, such as a lowering of mood, self-esteem, and feelings of belongingness (see Rudert & Greifeneder, 2016). In line with this, scholars have already advised to avoid scientific jargon in science communication to avoid social exclusion of readers (e.g., Burns et al., 2003; Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2013).

Taking this even further, we think that such feelings of social exclusion can cause a rejection of information which is difficult to understand. There is already considerable evidence from the field of social cognition research which has shown that a wide range of negative feelings is able to reduce people's trust (Forgas, 1994, 2003; Forgas & East, 2008; Zwingmann et al., 2017). Moreover, experimental research using the cyberball paradigm has demonstrated that social inclusion increases trust (Hillebrandt et al., 2011). We thus expect that feelings of social exclusion will mediate the effect between text complexity and trust in the message, trust in science, and adherence to behavioral measures (Mediation Hypothesis).

Conspiracy Mentality Increases Susceptibility to Language Complexity

During the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theories have spread as fast as the virus itself (Muller, 2020). According to Douglas et al. (2017, p. 538), conspiracy theories are “explanations for important events that involve secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups.” Conspiracy theories fulfill important (epistemic) motives and needs, such as the desire to understand a subject more deeply or the need for control and security (Jost et al., 2008). According to Imhoff and Bruder (2014), the strong belief in conspiracy theories, or a person's conspiracy mentality, is an expression of a deeper political attitude. This variable expresses a person’s tendency to blame powerful social groups and individuals for certain (negative) events. People with a strong conspiracy mentality thus assume that powerful groups and individuals are acting in an intentionally negative manner, and they also suspect state authorities or scientists of being involved in the plot. Individuals with a strong conspiracy mentality have been found to have less trust in powerful information sources, such as experts or scientists, and to report an increased credibility of powerless information sources, such as lay bloggers (Imhoff et al., 2018). This effect of reduced trust through conspiracy beliefs was even confirmed when people were experimentally confronted with conspiracy beliefs in political domains (Einstein & Glick, 2015). In a similar vein, Lewandowsky et al. (2013) found that a belief in conspiracy theories predicts opposition to general scientific findings, including those regarding genetically modified foods, vaccination, and climate change. Especially with regard to preventive social behaviors, conspiratorial thinking has played a crucial role (Bierwiaczonek et al., 2020; Earnshaw et al., 2020; Pummerer et al., 2021).

Even before the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals who believed more in conspiracy theories were shown to have lower vaccination propensity (see Jolley & Douglas, 2014, Study 1) and to be less compliant with health behaviors (Oliver & Wood, 2014). Recent findings in the COVID-19 context have shown similar effects, namely that individuals who support conspiracy theories and endorse misinformation are less likely to follow public health instructions (for a review, see Mukhtar, 2021). In addition, results of a longitudinal national probability survey on preventive COVID-19 behaviors showed that U.S. citizens with strong COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs were less likely to wear a mask and showed a lower willingness to be vaccinated (Romer & Jamieson, 2020).

Therefore, we think that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is of great interest to examine the impact of complex (vs. simple) scientific messages on those with reservations toward science, such as people with a strong conspiracy mentality. Especially with regard to our focal mediator, feelings of social exclusion, belief in conspiracy theories has been identified to play an important role. According to the existential threat model (ETM), belief in conspiracy theories is promoted by experiences of existential threat, such as fear, insecurity, or threats to one's values (van Prooijen, 2020). The ETM also proposes a cyclical feedback loop, in the direction that a strong conspiracy mentality increases the vulnerability to existential threats. Many studies have confirmed the first path of the ETM showing that experiences of social exclusion lead to increased endorsement of conspiracy theories (Graeupner & Coman, 2017; Poon et al., 2020). Lantian et al. (2018) found that people who were asked to defend conspiracy theories reported stronger fears of being devalued and thereby more socially excluded by others. In this study, we focus more on the feedback loop suggested by the ETM by testing whether a general conspiracy mentality increases the vulnerability towards subtle signs of social exclusion such as the use of very complex scientific jargon in health information.

The argument that conspiracy mentality influences whether text complexity leads to feelings of social exclusion can also be supported from the perspective of group membership. Readers can use different modes of language, for instance complex language instead of simple language, as a cue of group membership (Ghafournia, 2015). Scientific jargon might generally exclude readers without an academic background (Sharon & Baram-Tsabari, 2013), but its impact on feelings of social exclusion might be particularly strong for individuals who are wired to divide their surroundings into in-group and out-group members and are thus especially sensitive to cues of group membership (see Cichocka et al., 2016; van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014 for in-group positivity among conspiracy theorists). On top of that, believing in conspiracy theories was previously found to be associated with lower media and health literacy (Craft et al., 2017; Duplaga, 2020) and lower educational attainment (van Prooijen, 2017). This means that people with a high conspiracy mentality are not only likely to perceive a scientific text as complex but are also more likely to interpret text complexity as a cue for group membership that expels them.

We therefore assume that complex and difficult-to-read scientific messages (compared to relatively simple messages) serve as a negative cue for people with a high conspiracy mentality, to which they react with stronger feelings of social exclusion and an immediate rejection. We will thus exploratively test whether the effect of text complexity on trust and behavioral adherence via feelings of social exclusion is more pronounced among participants with high compared to low levels of conspiracy mentality (Exploratory Test of Moderated Mediation).

Overview of the Present Research

In the current study, we used an experimental design with pretested materials to test the effect of scientific statements’ linguistic complexity on readers’ trust in the message, trust in science in general, and adherence to behavioral recommendations linked to these statements. Mask-wearing is a crucial measure to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 through respiratory droplets. When this research was first developed in September 2020, mask-wearing was a controversial topic among English-speaking countries including the United Kingdom and the United States. The pursuit of practical implications thus encouraged us to conduct this research in the context of mask-wearing. We preregistered how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the experiments at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/hb9aq/).

Pretest: Construing a Complex versus Simple Text Manipulation

To construct high-quality materials to manipulate text complexity, we composed two short texts on mask-wearing. The texts contained almost identical content that was expressed in either simple or complex language. The pretest was preregistered: http://osf.io/hb9aq.

Method

Participants

We relied on an a priori power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2007). Computed for the parameters d = 0.80, α < 0.05, and 1 − β = 0.95, the power analysis indicated that a sample of 84 participants was required. Given that online data collection often involves data loss due to low data quality, we aimed for 120 participants. All participants were native English speakers recruited via Cardiff University's online testing system. Participants received one course credit for their participation. From the pool of completed questionnaires, we had to exclude 13 participants based on preregistered criteria.² The final sample consisted of 107 participants (89 women, 13 men, and five people not indicating their gender; M_age = 19.38, SD = 2.09).

Procedure and Materials

Participants were informed that the study would involve reading a short text and answering questions about it. After giving informed consent, they were randomly assigned to read either a simple or complex text about the effectiveness of face mask-wearing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 1s in Supplemental Materials online for the texts and summaries of their basic properties, including length, syntactic complexity, and narrativity).

The texts were composed to be of similar length and content, but to vary in complexity. According to the objective estimates provided by a Coh-Metrix 3.0 text complexity analysis (Graesser et al., 2004), the texts differed in terms of syntactic complexity scores. In the pretest, we measured whether their subjective complexity varied as well, that is, whether participants evaluated the complexity of the prepared texts as intended.

After reading the text, participants judged the text's complexity (“Do you think the paragraph is easy or hard to read?” and “Do you think the paragraph is simple or difficult to understand?”) on a 9-point Likert scale ranging from “easy/simple” to “hard/difficult.” We also recorded response times for reading the text, attention check measures for exclusion purposes, and participants’ age and gender.

Results

Multivariate analysis of variance that compared participants’ answers in the two conditions revealed that the simple text was evaluated as easier to read (M = 3.02, SD = 1.94) than the complex version (M = 5.09, SD = 1.50), F(1, 104) = 38.11, p < .001, ηp² = .27, and was less difficult to understand (M = 2.45, SD = 1.80) than the complex version (M = 4.51, SD = 1.74), F(1, 104) = 35.72, p < .001, ηp² = .26. However, participants’ reading time for both the simple text (M = 40.57, SD = 20.31) and the complex text (M = 44.92, SD = 19.04) were similar, F(1, 104) = 1.29, p = .26, ηp² = .01. Overall, the results indicated that the simpler text was not only objectively but also subjectively simpler than the complex text, and thus, we used the prepared texts in the subsequent main study.

Main Study: The Effects of Text Complexity on Trust and Adherence Following Scientific Messages

The aim of the main study was to experimentally establish the hypothesized effects of text complexity on trust in the message and science as well as on adherence to the message via social exclusion. The study was also preregistered (osf.io/vfq72).³

Method

Participants

We relied on a WebPower analysis for a SEM-based mediation model (Zhang & Yuan, 2015) with RMSEA H1 ≤ .08, df = 6, α < 0.05, and 1 − β = 0.95 (for up to two mediators) that recommended a minimum sample size of 544 participants. Given that online data collection often involves data loss due to low data quality, we aimed for 634 participants, who were then recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk at a rate of $9.00 per hour. All participants were adult U.S. citizens, and their native language was English. From the pool of completed questionnaires, we excluded 29 participants based on preregistered criteria.⁴ The final sample consisted of 605 participants (281 women, 323 men, and one person who did not indicate their gender; M_age = 41.27, SD = 13.62).

Procedure and Materials

Participants were informed that the study would include reading a short text and answering questions about it. After giving informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to read either a simple or complex text about the effectiveness of face mask-wearing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 1s in Supplemental Materials online).

Measures

After reading either the complex or simple version of the message, participants indicated their trust in the message, adherence to mask-wearing (which was the topic of the text), feelings of social exclusion, trust in science, conspiracy mentality, concern regarding COVID-19, sociodemographic information (age, gender, and education), U.S. state of residence, and political ideology. At the end of the study, participants completed attention check questions. Scale reliabilities, descriptive statistics, and correlations are shown in Table 1. For all materials and data, see the accompanying OSF webpage.

Table 1.

Scale Points, Reliability Coefficients, Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlation Coefficients for the Variables Used in the Main Study.

	Range	α	M	SD	2.	3.	4.	5.
1. Trust (message)	1–7	.85	5.74	1.36	.58***	.39***	−.52***	−.31***
2. Adherence	1–7	.97	5.37	2.01		.22***	−.42***	−.11**
3. Trust (science)	1–7	.93	5.10	1.14			−.20***	−.57***
4. Social exclusion	1–9	.94	3.06	1.77				.13**
5. Conspiracy mentality	1–11	.89	6.24	2.51

Note. Spearman's rho is reported instead of Cronbach's alpha for two item measures.

**p < .01, ***p < .001.

Trust in the Message

Participants answered two questions (“To what extent do you think the text is trustworthy?” and “To what extent would you use this piece of information to persuade other people around you to wear a face mask?”) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The answers were averaged into one score, with a higher score indicating a higher trust in the presented message.⁵

Adherence to Behavioral Measures

Participants responded to three statements—“In comparison to before reading, how likely is it that this text will affect your willingness to (1) wear a mask when you meet others; (2) wear a mask when you go shopping; (3) expect others to wear a face mask?”—on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The answers were averaged into one score, with a higher score indicating a higher intention to adhere to the described behavior.

Feelings of Social Exclusion

We used need fulfillment to measure feelings of social exclusion. Participants indicated fulfillment of their needs with the Need Threat Scale by Rudert and Greifeneder (2016), which is considered a common measurement of people's feelings after experiences of social exclusion. It included four items pertaining to four aspects of need fulfillment (belongingness, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence) answered on 9-point semantic differentials. Following the sentence “Please indicate how you feel after having read the text,” participants indicated their feelings on the answer scales rejected—accepted, devalued—valued, powerless—powerful, and invisible—respected. In order for the scale to reflect social exclusion, all answers were recoded and averaged into one score. Higher scores indicate higher feelings of social exclusion.

Trust in Science

Participants completed three subscales of the Negative Perceptions of Science Scale by Morgan et al. (2018): science as corrupt (five items, e.g., “Most scientists are politically biased,” α = .93), science as onerous (five items, e.g., “Science is too complicated to understand,” α = .88), and science as limited (five items, e.g., “The scientific method is limited,” α = .87). Answers were given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “totally disagree” to “totally agree.” Given a similar pattern of results for all three subscales, we report one general measure of trust in science formed as an average of all items. The original scale was designed with higher scores indicating higher negative perceptions of science, in the current experiment, reverse coding was used for the sake of more convenient analysis, with higher scores indicating higher trust in science.

Conspiracy Mentality

Participants completed the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire by Bruder et al. (2013) which comprises five items (e.g., “Events which superficially seem to lack a connection are often the result of secret activities”). Answers were given on an 11-point Likert scale ranging from “certainly not” to “certain.” All answers were later averaged into one score, with higher scores indicating a stronger conspiracy mentality.

Results

Main Effects

To examine whether the experimental text manipulation affected variables of interest in the study, we conducted a one-way multivariate analysis of variance with text complexity as independent factor (simple vs. complex), results of which are presented in Table 2.⁶ Additionally, we included participants’ conspiracy mentality, to see whether this variable was affected by the experimental treatment as it was recorded after the manipulation. Not confirming our Main Hypothesis, across almost all dependent variables used in the study we did not observe any difference between simple and complex conditions. Regarding the test of our moderator variable, conspiracy mentality, a significant effect of the treatment was identified. Unexpectedly, the results indicate that higher conspiracy mentality values were observed in the simple (compared to complex) condition. Given that the observed effect was very small in magnitude, and the obtained pattern of results does not bias the moderated mediation analyses in the predicted direction, we decided to keep conspiracy mentality in the forthcoming moderation analyses.

Table 2.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance Test Results Along With the Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables.

	Simple		Complex
	M	SD	M	SD	F(1, 603)	p	η ²
1. Trust (message)	5.77	1.38	5.70	1.35	0.37	.543	<0.01
2. Adherence	5.38	2.00	5.36	2.02	0.03	.861	<0.01
3. Trust (science)	5.07	1.21	5.12	1.07	0.31	.576	<0.01
4. Social exclusion	2.98	1.68	3.14	1.85	1.22	.269	<0.01
5. Conspiracy mentality	6.48	2.48	6.00	2.53	5.51	.019	0.01

Mediation Analyses

We hypothesized that the effects of text complexity on the dependent variables would follow an indirect path through feelings of social exclusion, which means that reading a complex (vs. simple) text would be related to higher feelings of exclusion and, therefore, affect trust in the message, adherence, and trust in science. However, as indicated in Table 2, the effect of text complexity on the hypothesized mediator was not significant. Accordingly, none of the mediation tests conducted with Hayes’s (2017) PROCESS macro (version 3.5; model 4) and the 1,000 bootstrap procedure was significant: trust in the message (point estimate = −0.06, BootCIs [−0.18; 0.05]), adherence (point estimate = −0.08, BootCIs [−0.21; 0.06]), and trust in science (point estimate = −0.02, BootCIs [−0.06; 0.01]).

Exploratory Moderated Mediation Analyses

We went beyond the preregistration to test whether the path between text complexity and social exclusion was moderated by conspiracy mentality (mean centered). We thus conducted an exploratory mediated moderation analysis using Hayes’ (2017) PROCESS macro (version 3.5; model 7) and the 5,000 bootstrap procedure. For a graphical demonstration of the model and additional details, see Figure 1 and Table 3, respectively.

Table 3.

Results of the First Stage Effects of Text Complexity and Conspiracy Mentality on Feelings of Social Exclusion.

	B	SE	t	95% CI
Constant	2.98***	0.10	29.55	2.78; 3.18
Text complexity (TC)	0.20	0.14	1.40	−0.08; 0.48
Conspiracy mentality (CM)	0.00	0.04	−0.12	−0.08; 0.07
Interaction (TC × CM)	0.20	0.06	3.53	0.09; 0.31

Note. Text complexity (TC) was coded 0 = simple and 1 = complex.

***p < .001.

First of all, we report regression coefficients pertaining to the mediator variable, social exclusion. As visible in Table 3, there was a significant interaction of text complexity and conspiracy mentality, ΔR² = 0.04, F(1, 601) = 8.60, p < .001. Analyses of conditional effects of the text complexity on social exclusion indicated that text complexity mattered only for participants with high conspiracy mentality (point estimate = 0.70, BootCIs [0.31; 1.09]) in such that a more complex text led to higher feelings of social exclusion. For participants with average (point estimate = 0.20, BootCIs [−0.08; 0.48]) and low conspiracy mentality (point estimate = −0.30, BootCIs [−0.70; 0.09]) text complexity had no effect on social exclusion ratings.

Trust in the Message

The overall model explained 27% of the variation in participants’ trust in the message (R² = 0.27, F(2, 602) = 110.80, p < .001), with social exclusion being a significant predictor of trust in message (B = −0.40, SE = 0.03, t = −14.87, p < .001). The significant moderated mediation index (for detailed values, see Table 4) indicated that text complexity increased social exclusion and, in turn, decreased trust in the message only for participants with a high conspiracy mentality. Importantly as well, pairwise contrasts between conditional indirect effects for individuals with high and those with average (point estimate = −0.20, BootCIs [−0.33; −0.08]) and low conspiracy mentality (point estimate = −0.40, BootCIs [−0.66; −0.16]) were significant.

Table 4.

Moderated Mediation Indexes and Conditional Indirect Effects of the Treatment.

Outcome variable	B	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Trust in message (MM index)	−0.08	0.03	−0.13	−0.03
Low conspiracy	0.12	0.08	−0.02	0.27
Average conspiracy	−0.08	0.06	−0.20	0.03
High conspiracy	−0.28	0.10	−0.48	−0.09
Adherence (MM index)	−0.10	0.03	−0.16	−0.04
Low conspiracy	0.15	0.09	−0.03	0.33
Average conspiracy	−0.10	0.07	−0.23	0.04
High conspiracy	−0.34	0.11	−0.56	−0.12
Trust in science (MM index)	−0.03	0.01	−0.05	−0.01
Low conspiracy	0.04	0.02	−0.007	0.09
Average conspiracy	−0.03	0.02	−0.07	0.01
High conspiracy	−0.09	0.04	−0.17	−0.03

Note. Text complexity was coded 0 = simple and 1 = complex. MM = moderated mediation. BootSE = bootstrap standard error. BootLLCI = bootstrap lower level of 95% confidence interval. BootULCI = bootstrap upper level of 95% confidence interval.

Adherence to Behavioral Measures

The overall model explained 18% of the variation in participants’ reported adherence to the measure (R² = 0.18, F(2, 602) = 66.17, p < .001), with social exclusion being a significant predictor of adherence (B = −0.48, SE = 0.04, t = −11.50, p < .001). The significant moderated mediation index (for detailed values, see Table 4) indicated that text complexity increased social exclusion, and, in turn, decreased adherence only for participants with a high conspiracy mentality. Also, pairwise contrasts between conditional indirect effects for participants with high and those with average (point estimate = −0.24, BootCIs [−0.40; −0.09]) and low conspiracy mentality (point estimate = −0.48, BootCIs [−0.79; −0.18]) were significant.

Trust in Science

The overall model explained 4% of the variation in participants’ trust in the science (R² = .04, F(2, 601) = 13.45, p < .001), with social exclusion being a significant predictor of trust in science (B = −0.13, SE = 0.03, t = −5.15, p < .001). The significant moderated mediation index (for detailed values, see Table 4) indicated that text complexity increased social exclusion, and, in turn, decreased trust in science only for participants with high conspiracy mentality. Again, pairwise contrasts tests between the conditional indirect effects for people high conspiracy mentality compared to those with average (point estimate = −0.07, BootCIs [−0.12; −0.02]) and low values (point estimate = −0.13, BootCIs [−0.24; −0.05]) were significant.

Discussion

In this research, we tested three hypotheses regarding various aspects of text complexity in reference to scientific communication. The conducted experiment did not obtain support for the hypothesized main effects of complex versus simple texts on trust in the message or science, nor adherence to the message. Relatedly, participants overall did not feel more socially excluded when reading the complex instead of the simple text, implying that we have also not observed the hypothesized mediation path. Importantly, however, the results indicated that the hypothesized mediation effects were present, but only for participants with a high conspiracy mentality. For those participants, reading a complex (vs. simple) text indeed led to feelings of social exclusion which, in turn, affected evaluations of message trustworthiness, trust in science, as well as adherence to the message. In more detail, participants with a strong conspiracy mentality felt more rejected and devalued as well as less powerful and respected when reading the complex instead of the simple message. Such effects were not observed for participants with average nor with low conspiracy mentality. Although this is an effect concerning a rather small group, it is nevertheless important, as it is advantageous if all subgroups of society are reached through targeted health communication, especially during a pandemic. Given the exponential spread of COVID-19, even a small group of people can cause (or prevent) great harm.

In line with other work, the present research highlights that media recipients are not a tabula rasa on which scientific messages impinge (Rubin, 2002). In the field of science and health communication, the concept of the “general population” should be reconsidered. Rather, the general population is divided into different sub-groups, some of which need to be addressed differently. To our knowledge, this research is the first to show that exposing individuals with a high conspiracy mentality to simple (vs. complex) scientific messages can enhance not only their trust in that message and in science in general but also their behavioral intentions to follow recommendations. In addition, this research also uncovered why simple language is more effective in reaching these individuals: it makes them feel more included than a complex message. Against this background, it is also important to note that increased text comprehensibility in our study did not negatively affect other parts of the sample. This means that the benefits for one target group can be increased by linguistic simplicity without reducing them for other groups.

The Conspiracy Mindset as One of Many Determinants of Information Processing

Considering personality variables as important factors for information processing is by no means a new idea. Potter’s (2004) cognitive theory of media literacy has already claimed that the construction of meaning based on media reports is dependent on certain individual-level variables, such as knowledge or skills. Accordingly, personal-level variables, such as the need for cognition (See et al., 2009; Sicilia et al., 2005; Williams-Piehota et al., 2003), need for closure (Kossowska et al., 2012; Vermeir et al., 2002), personal involvement (Braverman, 2008; Johnson & Eagly, 1989; Petty et al., 1981), or political ideology (Entman, 1989; LaMarre et al., 2009) have been repeatedly confirmed to affect information processing. With regard to the processing of health information, personal needs, such as the need for consistency or personal control, play an important role. Keller and Block (1999), for example, found that participants with strong affect-based dissonance denied health messages about safer sex more often than participants with lower scores on this variable. In a similar vein, our results indicate that simple instead of complex messages suit individuals with a strong conspiracy mentality better. At this point, we know that simple texts lead to decreased feelings of social exclusion in people with a strong conspiracy mentality, and thus to higher levels of trust and adherence. However, we do not know the underlying cause of this finding yet. To understand whether the moderated mediation effect is related to lower literacy levels within this group (see, e.g., van Prooijen, 2017 for lower education) or to intergroup processes (Cichocka et al., 2016; van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014), additional variables need to be assessed on how the texts are subjectively perceived by participants.

Reducing Message Complexity to Increase Inclusiveness of Scientific Communication

Building upon previous findings that have shown the effectiveness of tailoring messages to individuals with specific personalities and dispositions, our findings show that using simple instead of complex language is a helpful way to reach and influence individuals with a high conspiracy mentality. Reducing language complexity to be heard by individuals with high conspiracy mentality is in line with Nisbet and Scheufele’s (2009) recommendation to take the needs of particular audiences into account so that messages are comprehensible and valid for a given target.

The improved chances of influencing individuals with a high conspiracy mentality are not the only reasons to minimize complexity of scientific messages. Science is a common good, therefore scientific findings should be accessible to the lay public. This concern is being increasingly addressed with the Open Science movement in reference to accessibility of scientific texts and data. However, this concern could be also addressed through the language we use to communicate our findings (Baram-Tsabari & Lewenstein, 2013; Illes et al., 2010). Science communication should conform to Grice's Maxims of effective communication. In particular, this pertains to the maxim of manner, which refers to being as clear as possible and avoiding any ambiguity or confusion. While jargon and detailed presentation of research findings are more appropriate in scientific blogs, narratives and storytelling can be more appropriate for a general audience. Indeed, judgments of the quality of scientific communication in newspapers were positively related to the use of metaphors and narratives (August et al., 2020).

However, science is inherently complex and often cannot be thoroughly explained in a very simple language. As such, when writing papers for academic journals, scientists tend to use a technical language that serves as a crucial shortcut in communicating details efficiently to the science community who has basic knowledge of the background. The efficiency and precision of science communication is guaranteed in this way, but at a cost of readability for the lay public. This was not such a big issue before the current era of open-access publishing, because the lay public was unlikely to access scientific articles as a source of information. Instead, scientific findings had been interpreted and reported by journalists and news reporters. In order to raise the readability for the lay public, however, the media agencies had to simplify research findings by reducing some nuance, sometimes at the cost of exaggerating and misrepresenting the findings (Lee et al., 2016). By communicating their findings to the lay public themselves, scientists have the opportunity to summarize their findings as accurately as possible, which can forestall misrepresentations and misinterpretations introduced by intermediaries. Along with the development of open-access publishing, the opportunities and challenges are coming at the same time. The lay public has direct and free access to academic papers now, which brings higher chances for scientific findings to be read by more people. However, the complexity of scientific language can be a threshold preventing people from understanding scientific papers and accepting their findings. Striving for an optimal level of simplicity to ensure the readability of scientific findings, inclusion of additional plain language abstracts, and strategizing media plans can be new tasks for scientists or journals in the recent future.

Limitations and Future Directions

The results of this study indicated that the majority of participants tended to trust both the complex and the simple message on mask-wearing. While this result is not in accord with our Main Hypothesis, the design of the study might have affected the obtained null finding. First of all, after months into the COVID-19 pandemic, the effectiveness of mask-wearing had been widely acknowledged. When we conducted the experiment in January 2021, participants were already familiar with mask-wearing and its efficiency. This general knowledge might have reduced the overall effect of complexity on participants’ trust in and adherence to the message. Anticipating this issue, we ran the main study on participants in the United States instead of the United Kingdom given the more controversial attitudes toward mask-wearing in the United States. However, we still cannot deny the potential shortcomings caused by using such a familiar topic. In this vein, communication about more novel, complex, and controversial measures against COVID-19, such as vaccination, should be investigated in future studies. Especially for new technologies (e.g., mRNA vaccines), participants’ baseline trust might be lower, allowing complexity effects to emerge not only in individuals with a conspiracy mindset, but also to a greater extent in the general population. However, the null main effect on the familiarized topic can also be interpreted from a different angle. It may indicate that repetitive scientific information conveyed via media can raise people's general trust in scientific messages and behavioral adherence. Second of all, we presented participants with a relatively short text. Given the shortness of the manipulated texts, the complex version might still have been too simple to elicit feelings of social exclusion and distrust in participants with low and medium conspiracy mentality. Future studies could include longer texts to address that potential limitation.

Furthermore, future studies could address one aspect of language processing that was not directly addressed in the current research, namely fluency. Numerous studies have shown how fluency, that is the ease with which a text can be processed, enhances its liking (Reber et al., 2004), perceived truthfulness (Dechêne et al., 2009), and its trustworthiness (Newman et al., 2014; for an overview, see Schwarz et al., 2020). When research was presented with high audio quality or easy-to-read fonts, thus in a way that could be processed easily instead of hard, it was perceived to be of higher quality and the associated researchers were perceived to be more competent and intelligent (Newman & Schwarz, 2018; Oppenheimer, 2006). When exercise routines and cooking recipes were presented in an easy-to-read (vs. hard-to-read) font, participants also expected them to be easier to follow and were more motivated to carry them out (Song & Schwarz, 2008). Fluency research is thus not only relevant with regards to trust in scientific messages and science, but also with regards to adherence to messages. While our research has shown how individuals with high conspiracy mentality trust and adhere to complex (vs. simple) texts less because complexity elicits feelings of social exclusion, the impact of text complexity on mere processing fluency and consequences of experienced (dis)fluency have not been taken into account. It is possible that experiences of (dis)fluency can serve as a heuristic to determine text complexity. Future research will have to further disentangle how text complexity affects processing fluency and feelings of social exclusion and how experienced (dis)fluency might be the first step towards feeling excluded by a message.

Another possible limitation of this study is that both the moderators and mediators were collected in the cross-section of a study. We thus strive to measure relevant moderators such as conspiracy mentality and scientific literacy prior to the main study in future studies. Furthermore, it is worth considering the possibility of experimentally manipulating the mediator, as this may help to explain the mediation process in more detail (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016). In addition, we want to address that the moderated mediation analysis which uncovered the role of conspiracy mentality has been of exploratory nature. Future studies are thus needed to replicate the obtained result patterns, ideally following a preregistration preceding them.

Conclusion

Improving science communication is generally important because it engages the audience with scientific findings (Burns et al., 2003), which, in turn, affects the extent to which science is an important factor in shaping people's decisions, known as scientific literacy. There is no better occasion than a global pandemic to reconsider how difficult it should be for the lay public to understand and follow crucial messages. Expressing findings and recommendations in a less complex way seems to be a promising way to reach individuals with a high conspiracy mindset—those we have been struggling to reach.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jlsp-10.1177_0261927X211044789 - Supplemental material for Left Out—Feelings of Social Exclusion Incite Individuals with High Conspiracy Mentality to Reject Complex Scientific Messages

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jlsp-10.1177_0261927X211044789 for Left Out—Feelings of Social Exclusion Incite Individuals with High Conspiracy Mentality to Reject Complex Scientific Messages by Julia Schnepf, Alexandra Lux, Zixi Jin and Magdalena Formanowicz in Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Pit Klein, Fabio Fasoli, and the members and mentors of the EASP summer school for their feedback in the planning stage of the study. We would also like to thank the guest editors and the reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research project was developed during the 2020 EASP summer school and supported by a Seedcorn grant awarded to us by the European Association of Social Psychology. Zixi Jin's contribution was also supported by China Scholarship Council (CSC). Magdalena Formanowicz's contribution was funded by the OPUS 19 grant of the Polish National Science Center (2020/37/B/HS6/02587).

Ethical Compliance

Data collection was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the German Association of Psychology (DGPS) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration. The study was approved by the local ethics committee. All participants agreed with the privacy statement and the informed consent of the study.

ORCID iD

Julia Schnepf

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Julia Schnepf is a PhD student at the Department of Social, Economic, & Environmental Psychology at the University of Koblenz-Landau. She completed her undergraduate degree in political science and psychology at the University of Heidelberg and her MA in political science and economics from the same institution. Her current research focuses on conceptual framing effects across different political domains. In addition, she investigates the comparative framing of social inequalities.

Alexandra Lux is a PhD candidate at the Psychology Department of the University of Leuven (KU Leuven) in Belgium. She received her MA in social psychology (Cum Laude) from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU Amsterdam) in the Netherlands. In her PhD project supervised by Prof. Vera Hoorens and Prof. Susanne Bruckmüller, she investigates how the way we compare social groups can impact how readers judge and interpret claims, perceive claimants, and reconsider their beliefs about social groups.

Zixi Jin is a PhD student in School of Psychology in Cardiff University. She completed both her Bachelor's and Master's degree in applied psychology in China. Her main research interest is on embodied cognition and metaphoric effects on cognitive processes.

Magdalena Formanowicz is an assistant professor at the Center for Research on Social Relations, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw. Her research focuses on social cognition and language. Her research relies on a multimethod approach that incorporates experimental studies and analyses of large textual data to investigate language pertinent to discrimination and intergroup relations. She is also interested in dehumanization and agency.

References

Adler

(2012). The plain language movement. In Solan

L. M.

Tiersma

P. M.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 67–83). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0006

August

Kim

Reinecke

Smith

N. 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

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. 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

Bierwiaczonek

Kunst

J. R.

Pich

(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

Brashier

N. M.

Marsh

E. J.

(2020). Judging truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807

Braverman

(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

Bruder

Haffke

Neave

Nouripanah

Imhoff

(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

Burns

T. W.

O’Connor

D. J.

Stocklmayer

S. M.

(2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004

Cheung

I. 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.

Cichocka

Marchlewska

Golec de Zavala

Olechowski

(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.

Craft

Ashley

Maksl

(2017). News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Communication and the Public, 2(4), 388–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317725539

12.

Crossley

S. A.

Yang

H. S.

McNamara

D. 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.

Dechêne

Stahl

Hansen

Wänke

(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

14.

Directive 2001/83/EC. The Community code relating to medical products for human use. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32001L0083

15.

Dohle

Wingen

Schreiber

(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.

Douglas

K. M.

Sutton

R. M.

Cichocka

(2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261

17.

Duplaga

(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.

Earnshaw

V. A.

Eaton

L. A.

Kalichman

S. C.

Brousseau

N. M.

Hill

E. C.

Fox

A. 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.

Einstein

K. L.

Glick

D. 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

20.

El Kihal

Atalay

A. S.

Ellsaesser

(2020). A natural language processing approach to predicting the persuasiveness of marketing communication. (Marketing Science Institute Working Paper No. 20-104). https://www.msi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MSI_Report_20_104-1.pdf

21.

Entman

R. 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

22.

Ermakova

Baumann

Fabian

Krasnova

(2014, August 7–9). Privacy policies and users’ trust: does readability matter? Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Savannah, GA, United States. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2014/HumanComputerInteraction/GeneralPresentations/14/

23.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A.-G.

Buchner

(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.

Forgas

J. 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.

Forgas

J. P.

(2003). Affective influences on attitudes and judgments. In Davidson

R. J.

Scherer

K. R.

Goldsmith

H. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 596–618). Oxford University Press.

26.

Forgas

J. P.

East

(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.

Furnham

Gunter

Green

(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

28.

Ghafournia

(2015). Language as a symbol of group membership. Asian Social Science, 11(5), 19–25. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n5p19

29.

Graesser

A. C.

McNamara

D. S.

Louwerse

M. M.

Cai

(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.

Graeupner

Coman

(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.

Grasswick

(2014). Climate change science and responsible trust: A situated approach. Hypatia, 29(3), 541–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12090

32.

Green

J. A.

Gonzaga

A. M.

Cohen

E. D.

Spagnoletti

C. 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.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford.

34.

Hayes

D. P.

(1992). The growing inaccessibility of science. Nature, 356(6372), 739–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/356739a0

35.

Hillebrandt

Sebastian

Blakemore

S. 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.

Hitlan

R. T.

Kelly

K. M.

Schepman

Schneider

K. T.

Zárate

M. 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.

Illes

Moser

M. A.

McCormick

J. B.

Racine

Blakeslee

Caplan

Hayden

E. C.

Ingram

Lohwater

McKnight

Nicholson

Phillips

Sauvé

K. D.

Snell

Weiss

(2010). Neurotalk: Improving the communication of neuroscience research. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2773

38.

Imhoff

Bruder

(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.

Imhoff

Lamberty

Klein

(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

40.

Johnson

B. T.

Eagly

A. H.

(1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.290

41.

Jolley

Douglas

K. M.

(2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PloS One, 9(2), e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

42.

Jost

J. T.

Ledgerwood

Hardin

C. 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.

Keller

P. A.

Block

L. 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.

Kim

B. S.

Lee

D. W.

Bae

J. N.

Chang

S. M.

Kim

K. W.

Rim

H. D.

Park

J. E.

Cho

M. 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.

Kim

Mishra

Wang

Singh

S. 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.

Kossowska

Jaśko

Bar-Tal

Szastok

(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.

LaMarre

H. L.

Landreville

K. D.

Beam

M. 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.

Lantian

Muller

Nurra

Klein

Berjot

Pantazi

(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.

Lee

Sutton

R. M.

Hartley

B. 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.

Lee

T. 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.

Lewandowsky

Gignac

G. E.

Oberauer

(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.

Lowrey

T. 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.

MacIntyre

P. D.

Burns

Jessome

(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.

Malecki

Keating

J. A.

Safdar

(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.

Masson

M. E.

Waldron

M. 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.

Meppelink

C. S.

Smit

E. G.

Buurman

B. M.

van Weert

J. 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.

Mesmer

H. A.

Hiebert

E. 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.

Meyer

(1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500301

59.

Morgan

Collins

Sparks

Welch

(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.

Mukhtar

(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

61.

Muller

(2020, April 24). COVID-19 brings a pandemic of conspiracy theories. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/202004/covid-19-brings-pandemic-conspiracy-theories

62.

Nadelson

L. S.

Hardy

K. 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.

Newman

E. J.

Sanson

Miller

E. K.

Quigley-McBride

Foster

J. L.

Bernstein

D. M.

Garry

(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.

Newman

E. J.

Schwarz

(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.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. 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.

Oliver

J. E.

Wood

(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.

Oppenheimer

D. 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.

Palamenghi

Barello

Boccia

Graffigna

(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.

Petelin

(2010). Considering plain language: Issues and initiatives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011037964

70.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Goldman

(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.

Pirlott

A. G.

MacKinnon

D. 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-Sigray

Matheson

G. J.

Schiffler

B. C.

Thompson

W. H.

(2017). The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. Elife, 6, e27725. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.27725

73.

Plohl

Musil

(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.

Poon

K. T.

Chen

Wong

W. Y.

(2020). Beliefs in conspiracy theories following ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219898944

75.

Potter

W. J.

(2004). Theory of media literacy: A cognitive approach. Sage.

76.

Premji

Messing

Lippel

(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.

Pummerer

Böhm

Lillehot

Winter

Zettler

Sassenberg

(2021). Societal effects of Covid-19 conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211000217

78.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(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

79.

Rennekamp

(2012). Processing fluency and investors’ reactions to disclosure readability. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(5), 1319–1354. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2012.00460.x

80.

Roberts

(2010). Correlations among variables in message and messenger credibility scales. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376310

81.

Romer

Jamieson

K. 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.

Rubin

A. M.

(2002). The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In Bryant

Zillmann

(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 525–548). Lawrence Erlbaum.

83.

Rudert

S. C.

Greifeneder

(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.

Ryan

Henderson

(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.

Schindler

T. M.

(2019). Ansätze für barrierefreie kommunikation im medizinisch-pharmazeutischen bereich. In Maaß

Rink

(Eds.), Handbuch barrierefreie kommunikation (pp. 657–678). Frank & Timme.

86.

Schwarz

Jalbert

Noah

Zhang

(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.

See

Y. H. M.

Petty

R. E.

Evans

L. 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.

Sharon

A. J.

Baram-Tsabari

(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.

Sicilia

Ruiz

Munuera

J. 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

90.

Song

Schwarz

(2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x

91.

Taylor

B. 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.

Tödtmann

(2012). Ärzte und patienten – zwei welten begegnen sich. In Hax

P.-M.

Hax-Schoppenhorst

(Eds.), Kommunikation mit patienten in der chirurgie. Praxisempfehlungen für Ärzte aller operativen fächer (pp. 57–62). Kohlhammer.

93.

Unkelbach

Greifeneder

(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 Prooijen

J. W.

(2017). Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3301

95.

van Prooijen

J. W.

(2020). An existential threat model of conspiracy theories. European Psychologist, 25(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000381

96.

van Prooijen

J. W.

van Lange

P. A.

(2014). The social dimension of belief in conspiracy theories. In van Prooijen

J. W.

van Lange

P. A.

(Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders (pp. 237–253). Cambridge University Press.

97.

Vermeir

Van Kenhove

Hendrickx

(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.

Weingart

Guenther

(2016). Science communication and the issue of trust. Journal of Science Communication, 15(05), C01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15050301

99.

Williams

Ogden

(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-Piehota

Schneider

T. R.

Pizarro

Mowad

Salovey

(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.

Wolf

M. S.

Williams

M. V.

Parker

R. M.

Parikh

N. S.

Nowlan

A. W.

Baker

D. 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.

A. W.

Connors

Everly

G. 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.

Zabal

Martin

Klaukien

Rammstedt

Baumert

Klieme

(2013). Grundlegende kompetenzen der erwachsenen bevölkerung in deutschland im internationalen vergleich. In Rammstedt

(Ed.), Grundlegende kompetenzen erwachsener im internationalen vergleich: Ergebnisse von PIAAC 2012 (pp. 31–76). Waxmann.

104.

Zhang

Yuan

K. H.

(2015). WebPower: Statistical power analysis online. Webpower.Psychstat. https://webpower.psychstat.org/wiki/

105.

Zürn

Topolinski

(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.

Zwingmann

Baile

W. F.

Schmier

J. W.

Bernhard

Keller

(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.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB