Evident or doubtful? How lexical hints in written information influence laypersons’ understanding of influenza

Abstract

There are clear differences in the way written information on health issues presents research findings. In some cases, the source of a piece of information (e.g. "expert professor") is highlighted to emphasize its credibility and relevance. In other cases, the impact of a certain argument is stressed by avoiding hints on tentativeness such as "mostly" or "up to now." This article examines whether and how far such differences influence laypersons' comprehension of the contents provided. In an experimental setting, 157 laypersons were asked to read an online article on a new approach to preventing influenza. The texts manipulated whether there were (a) hints on the source of information and (b) lexical hints on the tentativeness of the information (hedges). After reading the text, participants were asked to write an essay reporting their opinion on the topic. Their argumentation on vaccination was assessed with content analysis and their attitudes toward vaccination were surveyed with a questionnaire. Results indicated that when lexical hints were given, tentativeness led participants to focus more on the actual information in the text. Additionally, decisions more strongly favored the direction implied in the text when the source of the medical information was not reported. Consequences for the way health information should be presented to laypersons are discussed.

Conflicting Evidence or Conflicting Opinions? Two-Sided Expert Discussions Contribute to Experts’ Trustworthiness

“…For instance, the use of lexical markers of tentativeness (lexical hedges as “possibly” or “seem to”) in texts lead to arguments being evaluated as weaker and sources or persons being perceived as less trustworthy and competent (Blankenship & Holtgraves, 2005; Burrel & Koper, 1998; Hosman & Siltanen, 2011). However, the presence of such lexical hedges also leads readers to focus more on the actual information in the text (Mayweg-Paus & Jucks, 2014).…”

“…An argument was defined as a statement giving information on the topic and thereby including either pro or contra evidence as well as an indication of whether there was proof for this evidence (e.g., “In one of their studies, Prof. Rickert and colleagues found that poor school performance and the frequent use of specific computer games are interrelated—even in children from moderately or highly educated families that provide optimal preconditions for success at school”). We ensured that the number of other potentially influencing factors, that is, references to a source and linguistic markers of tentativeness (Mayweg-Paus & Jucks, 2014; Thiebach et al, 2015), was balanced between the pro and contra arguments.…”

“…Relevant hints on evaluating expert discussions may be found in how experts communicate their views and base them on research findings. In this context, previous research has stressed the role of textual features that point to the scientificness of the information provided (Jensen, 2008; Mayweg-Paus & Jucks, 2014; Thiebach, Mayweg-Paus, & Jucks, 2015) or the use of citations (Thomm & Bromme, 2012).…”

Influence of Enthusiastic Language on the Credibility of Health Information and the Trustworthiness of Science Communicators: Insights From a Between-Subject Web-Based Experiment

“…Various factors influence information seekers’ credibility and trustworthiness judgments [15-17], but the language style of an information source seems to be an especially influential factor [18-22]. Thon and Jucks [18], for example, showed that the authors of health information forum posts were rated as more trustworthy and their information as more credible when they used an everyday language style (eg, “heart attack”) instead of a technical language style (eg, “myocardial infarction”).…”

“…Thon and Jucks [18], for example, showed that the authors of health information forum posts were rated as more trustworthy and their information as more credible when they used an everyday language style (eg, “heart attack”) instead of a technical language style (eg, “myocardial infarction”). Furthermore, Mayweg-Paus and Jucks [22] showed that participants accepted information from an online health article to a higher degree and processed it in more depth when the article was written in a tentative language style (eg, “is presumably similar”) rather than a nontentative language style (eg, “is similar”). Tentativeness, however, does not just infuence trustworthiness and credibility judgments.…”