As we learn more about the world, it becomes impossible to master everything that is known. People have to specialize in one area and consult experts for information on other domains. But how can these experts pass their messages clearly?
One defining feature of experts is their knowledge of technical terms, specific to their occupation, or jargon. Should experts consider explaining using jargon? It may be detrimental, because the public lacks knowledge on what the jargon means; but it can also be beneficial, because jargon signals the source’s expertise, and may increase trust in their explanations. My project explores which of these is true.
By asking people to rate low – circular and short – and high – detailed and complete – quality explanations, we can address this question. Circular explanations with jargon are considered more satisfactory, but more difficult to understand, than their not-jargony counterparts. For complete explanations, however, only detrimental effects of jargon – on comprehensibility – were found.
But why is jargon beneficial in circular explanations? I find that the benefits of jargon emerge because people turn away from assessing circular explanations based on their content: Adding jargon reduces ratings of how “gappy” an explanation feels, which in turn make people like the explanations more.
Finally, I show that these erroneous perceptions can be corrected: When asked to answer a difficult question about the explanation, people subsequently rate the explanation lower on satisfaction – especially for explanations for which they are the most overconfident, that is, circular explanations with jargon.
- Tags
-