Scientific communication poses a challenge: To clearly highlight key conclusions and implications while fully acknowledging the limitations of the evidence. Although these goals are in principle compatible, the goal of conveying complex and variable data may compete with reporting results in a digestible form that fits (increasingly) limited publication formats. As a result, authors’ choices may favor clarity over complexity. For example, generic language (e.g., “Introverts and extraverts require different learning environments”) may mislead by implying general, timeless conclusions while glossing over exceptions and variability. Using generic language is especially problematic if authors overgeneralize from small or unrepresentative samples (e.g., exclusively Western, middle-class). We present 4 studies examining the use and implications of generic language in psychology research articles. Study 1, a text analysis of 1,149 psychology articles published in 11 journals in 2015 and 2016, examined the use of generics in titles, research highlights, and abstracts. We found that generics were ubiquitously used to convey results (89% of articles included at least 1 generic), despite that most articles made no mention of sample demographics. Generics appeared more frequently in shorter units of the paper (i.e., highlights more than abstracts), and generics were not associated with sample size. Studies 2 to 4 (n= 1,578) found that readers judged results expressed with generic language to be more important and generalizable than findings expressed with nongeneric language. We highlight potential unintended consequences of language choice in scientific communication, as well as what these choices reveal about how scientists think about their data.

No abstract

No abstract

Parent-child conversations in everyday interactions may set the stage for children's interest and understanding about science. Studies of family conversations in museums have found links to children's engagement and learning. Stories and narratives about science may spark children's interest in science topics. This study asks whether a museum exhibit that provides opportunities for families to create narratives might encourage families' explanatory science talk throughout the rest of the exhibit. The project focused on the potential impact of a hands-on story-telling exhibit, the “spin browser” embedded within a larger exhibition focused on fossilized mammoth bones—Mammoth Discovery! at Children's Discovery Museum of San Jose. Participants were 83 families with children between 3 and 11 years (mean age 7 years). We coded families' narrative talk (telling stories about the living mammoth or the fossil discovery) and connecting talk (linking the story to other nearby exhibits) while families visited the spin browser, and we also coded families' explanatory science talk at the exhibits that contained authentic fossil bones and replica bones. The parents in families who visited the spin browser (n = 37) were more likely to engage in science talk at the fossil exhibits than those in families who did not visit the spin browser (n = 46). Further, a regression analysis showed that family science talk at the fossil exhibits was predicted by parents' connections talk and children's narrative talk at the spin browser. These findings suggest that families' narratives and stories may provide an entry point for science-related talk, and encourage future study about specific links between storytelling and science understanding.

No abstract