Literature DB >> 33903249

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

David M Markowitz1, Hillary C Shulman2.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  automated text analysis; common words; field studies; jargon; processing fluency

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33903249      PMCID: PMC8106339          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2026045118

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  13 in total

1.  Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency.

Authors:  Adam L Alter; Daniel M Oppenheimer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-06-05       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  A new readability yardstick.

Authors:  R FLESCH
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1948-06

Review 3.  The secret life of fluency.

Authors:  Daniel M Oppenheimer
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 20.229

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

Authors:  Olivia M Bullock; Daniel Colón Amill; Hillary C Shulman; Graham N Dixon
Journal:  Public Underst Sci       Date:  2019-07-28

5.  Patients' misunderstanding of common orthopaedic terminology: the need for clarity.

Authors:  C H M Bagley; A R Hunter; I A Bacarese-Hamilton
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Communicating prognosis in early breast cancer: do women understand the language used?

Authors:  E A Lobb; P N Butow; D T Kenny; M H Tattersall
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1999-09-20       Impact factor: 7.738

Review 7.  How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making.

Authors:  Valerie F Reyna; Wendy L Nelson; Paul K Han; Nathan F Dieckmann
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 17.737

8.  Medical word use in clinical encounters.

Authors:  Susan Koch-Weser; William Dejong; Rima E Rudd
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  The Why We Retweet scale.

Authors:  Anuja Majmundar; Jon-Patrick Allem; Tess Boley Cruz; Jennifer Beth Unger
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-18       Impact factor: 3.240

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

Authors:  Hillary C Shulman; Olivia M Bullock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Tracking group identity through natural language within groups.

Authors:  Ashwini Ashokkumar; James W Pennebaker
Journal:  PNAS Nexus       Date:  2022-06-24

2.  The Importance of Project Description to Charitable Crowdfunding Success: The Mediating Role of Forwarding Times.

Authors:  Liangdong Lu; Weijian Jiang; Jia Xu; Fei Wang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-04-27
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.