Generic language in scientific communication

Across a broad set of high-impact journals, psychological results were often described with generic language.

“Generic language was frequently used to characterize psychological results across a broad range of highly ranked journals.”

Journal impact factor had no significant effect on the proportion of generics.

“No significant effect of journal impact factor was observed.”

Hedged generics were judged to come from larger samples than nongeneric statements.

“rated hedged generics (mean = 3.94, b = 0.14, P = 0.033) as being drawn from larger samples (rated on a 1 to 7 scale) than nongenerics (mean = 3.86).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants' ratings of importance, generalizability, and sample size are valid measures of how readers interpret scientific findings.

In the analyzed corpus, 89% of articles contained at least one generic sentence.

“Generic language was prevalent in these articles: 89% of the articles (1,025 of 1,149) included at least 1 generic sentence.”

In shorter formats, generic sentences were less often framed or hedged.

“Generic sentences were also less likely to be framed or hedged in shorter article formats.”

Whether an article specified participants' language background significantly predicted the proportion of generic sentences.

“Two significant predictors emerged: Whether the article specified the participants' SES (b = -0.04,SE = 0.01, t = -3.29,P = 0.001) and whether the article specified the participants' language background (b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, t = 1.99,P = 0.046) (Table 3).”

Shorter formats, especially titles and highlights, showed this pattern more often.

“This practice was especially common in shorter article formats, such as titles and highlights, which provide less opportunity to communicate nuances in the findings or limitations of the work.”

When all articles were included, highlights were more likely than abstracts to contain generics.

“Highlights (mean = 0.40) were more likely to include generics than abstracts (mean = 0.16), b = 0.25, SE = 0.01, t = 23.02,P < 0.001.”

Titles had a significantly higher proportion of generics than highlights.

“titles had a significantly higher proportion of generics than highlights (b = 0.47, SE = 0.02, t = 27.54,P < 0.001).”

Whether an article specified participants' socioeconomic status significantly predicted the proportion of generic sentences.

“Two significant predictors emerged: Whether the article specified the participants' SES (b = -0.04,SE = 0.01, t = -3.29,P = 0.001) and whether the article specified the participants' language background (b = 0.02, SE = 0.01, t = 1.99,P = 0.046) (Table 3).”

Generic use was not associated with sample size.

“Articles that recruited a larger sample were not more likely to include generics than articles that reported smaller samples.”

Articles that did not specify socioeconomic background had a higher mean proportion of generics (0.25) than articles that specified some aspect of SES (0.20).

“Articles in which participants' socioeconomic background was not specified (n = 906) included more generics (mean = 0.25, SE = 0.01) than articles that specified some aspect of participant SES (n = 243; mean = 0.20, SE = 0.01).”

Generic language did not affect judgments of sample diversity.

“There were no effects of generic language when judging sample diversity.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants' ratings of importance, generalizability, and sample size are valid measures of how readers interpret scientific findings.

As measured by sample characteristics, generic use showed no relation to the claim's evidentiary basis.

“Generic use was unrelated to the evidentiary basis of the claim (as measured by the features of the sample coded from the articles): Articles that recruited a larger sample were not more likely to include generics than articles that reported smaller samples.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Sample size and reporting of participant demographics adequately capture the evidentiary basis of a claim.

Articles that mentioned language background had a higher mean proportion of generics (0.26) than articles that did not specify language background (0.24).

“In contrast, articles in which the participants' language background was mentioned (n = 296) included more generics (mean = 0.26, SE = 0.01) than articles that did not specify language background (n = 853; mean = 0.24, SE = 0.01).”

All three generic forms-bare, framed, and hedged-received higher importance ratings than nongeneric summaries.

“Bare (mean = 4.12, b = 0.15, P = 0.018), framed (mean = 4.19, b = 0.20, P = 0.002), and hedged generics (mean = 4.18, b = 0.19, P = 0.002) were all rated as more important on a 1 to 7 scale than nongeneric summaries (mean = 4.03).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants' ratings of importance, generalizability, and sample size are valid measures of how readers interpret scientific findings.

Generics made up a larger share of codable sentences in titles (87%) than in highlights (40%) and abstracts (16%).

“As a percentage of codable sentences, generics were most frequent for shorter elements: Titles (87%) > highlights (40%) > abstracts (16%) (Fig. 1).”

Among generic sentences, bare generics were more common in shorter formats, making up 98% of titles, 70% of highlights, and 15% of abstracts.

“Within the sentences coded as generic, bare generics were more common in shorter formats, accounting for 98% of titles, 70% of highlights, and 15% of abstracts.”

Framed generics were judged to apply to a larger share of the world's population than nongeneric statements.

“Participants rated framed generics (mean = 55.70%, b = 0.24, P = 0.023) as generalizable to a larger percentage of people than nongenerics (mean = 53.47%)”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Participants' ratings of importance, generalizability, and sample size are valid measures of how readers interpret scientific findings.

In a multilevel model, highlights and titles had higher proportions of generics than abstracts.

“Compared to abstracts (mean = 0.16), highlights (mean = 0.40, b = 0.25, SE = 0.01, t = 21.70,P < 0.001) and titles (mean = 0.87, b = 0.71, SE = 0.02, t = 42.26,P < 0.001) had relatively more generics.”

In studies 3b and 3c, there was no interaction between participant sample and generic language.

“Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 samples (Ps > 0.4) and no interaction between participant sample and generic language (P = 0.645).”

In studies 3b and 3c, there were no differences between the two samples.

“Additionally, there were no differences between the 2 samples (Ps > 0.4) and no interaction between participant sample and generic language (P = 0.645).”

In study 3d, participants rated bare generics more highly than multicue nongenerics.

“Participants rated bare generics (mean = 4.51) more highly than multicue nongenerics (mean = 4.19, Ps < 0.005) and qualified nongenerics (mean = 4.25, Ps < 0.05).”

Readers were more sensitive to language differences when multiple, converging cues were provided.

“At the same time, the present effects were small and subtle, and readers were more sensitive to language differences when multiple, converging cues were provided (e.g.,”

Even when information about participants was provided, there was little consistency in how it was reported or where it appeared.

“Even when this information was provided, there was little consistency in how it was reported or even where it appeared.”

Across four experiments, there was a persistent advantage for generic language compared to nongenerics expressed with multiple cues.

“Across 4 experiments, we found a persistent advantage for generic language as compared to nongenerics expressed with multiple cues (tense plus qualifier, tense plus quantified noun phrase [”

Clinical summaries were rated as extending to less diverse samples than PNAS summaries.

“For example, clinical summaries were rated as more important and having larger samples but less generalizable and extending to less diverse samples than PNAS summaries.”

Papers that provided information about participants' language background were more likely to include generics than those that did not.

“Those articles providing no information about participants' SES were more likely to include generics in their results summaries (although papers that provided information about participants' language background were more likely to include generics than those that did not).”

Clinical summaries were rated as more important than PNAS summaries.

“For example, clinical summaries were rated as more important and having larger samples but less generalizable and extending to less diverse samples than PNAS summaries.”

The effects in study 2 were small.

“Nonetheless, the effects were small, so we conducted 2 additional studies to understand more fully the conditions under which generic language affects readers' interpretations of research summaries.”

Study 2 participants at times judged generic-language findings as more generalizable than nongeneric-language findings.

“To summarize, participants in study 2 judged findings expressed with generic language as more important (and at times more generalizable and drawing from a larger sample) than findings expressed with nongeneric language, despite a subtle language manipulation (simply varying verb tense, for example, from”

In study 3a, bare generics were rated as equivalent to simple past-tense nongenerics.

“Across all measures, participants rated the bare generics (mean = 4.52) as more important than the multicue nongenerics (mean = 3.85, b = -0.77,P < 0.001), but in contrast to study 2, bare generics were rated as equivalent to simple pasttense nongenerics (mean = 4.54, b = 0.06, P = 0.511).”

In study 4a, participants rated bare generics as more important than simple past-tense nongenerics describing the same content.

“In study 4a, participants rated bare generics as more important than simple past-tense nongenerics describing the same content [mean = 4.42, t(103) = 4.07, P < 0.001)], and in study 4b, they judged bare generics as more important than all other nongeneric alternatives (Ps < 0.007), but as less important than framed generics [mean = 3.32, t(101) = -5.61,P < 0.001].”

In study 4b, participants judged bare generics as less important than framed generics.

“In study 4a, participants rated bare generics as more important than simple past-tense nongenerics describing the same content [mean = 4.42, t(103) = 4.07, P < 0.001)], and in study 4b, they judged bare generics as more important than all other nongeneric alternatives (Ps < 0.007), but as less important than framed generics [mean = 3.32, t(101) = -5.61,P < 0.001].”

Over 97% of the titles coded as generic in study 1 followed the assertive sentence format.

“For example, Rosner (51) found striking increases over time and differences across disciplines in the use of assertive sentence titles, defined as”

• cites [51] 51. J. L. Rosner, Reflections of science as a product. Nature 345, 108 (1990). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Clinical summaries were rated as less generalizable than PNAS summaries.

“For example, clinical summaries were rated as more important and having larger samples but less generalizable and extending to less diverse samples than PNAS summaries.”

Over 70% of the papers sampled supplied no clear information about participants' race, SES, or language.

“Indeed, despite a near-universal tendency to report empirical results in generic terms, over 70% of the papers we sampled supplied no clear information about participants' race, SES, or language, consistent with other findings in the literature (48).”

• cites [48] 48. M. S. Rad, A. J. Martingano, J. Ginges, Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 115, 11401-11405 (2018). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

In a sample of over 1,000 articles published in 11 psychology journals over a 2-year period, nearly 90% of articles included generics in the summary of research results.

“In a sample of over 1,000 articles published in 11 psychology journals over a 2-y period, nearly 90% of articles included generics in the summary of research results (study 1).”

In study 3d, participants rated bare generics more highly than qualified nongenerics.

“Participants rated bare generics (mean = 4.51) more highly than multicue nongenerics (mean = 4.19, Ps < 0.005) and qualified nongenerics (mean = 4.25, Ps < 0.05).”

In contrast to study 2, participants did not rate simple past-tense nongenerics differently from bare generics.

“Nonetheless, in contrast to study 2, participants did not rate simple pasttense generics differently from bare generics.”

Study 2 participants at times judged generic-language findings as drawing from a larger sample than nongeneric-language findings.

“To summarize, participants in study 2 judged findings expressed with generic language as more important (and at times more generalizable and drawing from a larger sample) than findings expressed with nongeneric language, despite a subtle language manipulation (simply varying verb tense, for example, from”

The use of generics was uncorrelated with sample size.

“We found no evidence that this usage was warranted by stronger evidence, as it was uncorrelated with sample size.”

In study 3a, across all measures, participants rated bare generics as more important than multicue nongenerics.

“Across all measures, participants rated the bare generics (mean = 4.52) as more important than the multicue nongenerics (mean = 3.85, b = -0.77,P < 0.001), but in contrast to study 2, bare generics were rated as equivalent to simple pasttense nongenerics (mean = 4.54, b = 0.06, P = 0.511).”

The content area of the summaries influenced participants' answers on all four test questions.

“The content area of the summaries affected participants' judgments on all 4 test questions (SI Appendix, Table S5).”

Clinical summaries were rated as having larger samples than PNAS summaries.

“For example, clinical summaries were rated as more important and having larger samples but less generalizable and extending to less diverse samples than PNAS summaries.”

In study 4b, participants judged bare generics to be slightly less conclusive than qualified and 'some' nongenerics.

“In contrast to the importance ratings, participants also judged bare generics to be slightly less conclusive than qualified and”

In studies 3b and 3c, participants rated bare generics more highly than multicue nongenerics.

“In both studies, participants rated bare generics (mean = 4.50) more highly than multicue nongenerics (mean = 3.92, Ps < 0.001); again, however, no difference was observed between bare generics and simple past-tense nongenerics (mean = 4.52, Ps > 0.5).”

In study 4b, participants judged bare generics as more important than all other nongeneric alternatives.

“In study 4a, participants rated bare generics as more important than simple past-tense nongenerics describing the same content [mean = 4.42, t(103) = 4.07, P < 0.001)], and in study 4b, they judged bare generics as more important than all other nongeneric alternatives (Ps < 0.007), but as less important than framed generics [mean = 3.32, t(101) = -5.61,P < 0.001].”

Articles providing no information about participants' SES were more likely to include generics in their results summaries.

“Those articles providing no information about participants' SES were more likely to include generics in their results summaries (although papers that provided information about participants' language background were more likely to include generics than those that did not).”

Study 2 participants judged findings expressed with generic language as more important than findings expressed with nongeneric language.

“To summarize, participants in study 2 judged findings expressed with generic language as more important (and at times more generalizable and drawing from a larger sample) than findings expressed with nongeneric language, despite a subtle language manipulation (simply varying verb tense, for example, from”

In study 4b, when judging which sentences they would rather draw conclusions from, participants judged bare generics to be less conclusive than framed generics.

“In study 4b, when judging which sentences they would rather draw conclusions from, participants also judged bare generics to be less conclusive than framed generics [mean = 3.22, t(102) = 5.85, P < 0.001].”

In studies 3b and 3c, no difference was observed between bare generics and simple past-tense nongenerics.

“In both studies, participants rated bare generics (mean = 4.50) more highly than multicue nongenerics (mean = 3.92, Ps < 0.001); again, however, no difference was observed between bare generics and simple past-tense nongenerics (mean = 4.52, Ps > 0.5).”

Generalizing from WEIRD samples encourages deficit thinking.

“Generalizing from WEIRD samples also encourages deficit thinking; when participants from non-WEIRD samples perform differently, this is often described as abnormal or problematic (15,(17)(18)(19).”

• cites (15,(17)(18)(19)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Generics overlook exceptions and variability.

“They gloss over exceptions and variability.”

• cites [22] 22. S. A. Gelman, The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [25] 25. S.-J. Leslie, Generics: Cognition and acquisition. Philos. Rev. 117, 1-47 (2008). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Because most articles did not report sample diversity information, the authors could not relate generic language to sample diversity.

“Because most articles did not even report this information, we were unable to relate generic language to sample diversity.”

Generics can increase essentialist thinking.

“can lead to higher rates of essentialism (41).”

• cites [41] 41. M. Rhodes, S.-J. Leslie, C. M. Tworek, Cultural transmission of social essentialism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 13526-13531 (2012). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Quantified statements are often later remembered as generic.

“with quantified statements often misremembered as generic (32).”

• cites [32] 32. S.-J. Leslie, S. A. Gelman, Quantified statements are recalled as generics: Evidence from preschool children and adults. Cognit. Psychol. 64, 186-214 (2012). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Expressing a finding generically may lead readers to see the result as especially important, robust, or generalizable.

“For all of these reasons, expressing a finding generically may lead readers to think that a scientific result is especially important (because it is conceptually central and universal), robust (because it is normatively correct), or generalizable (because it downplays variability and exceptions).”

Generics resist counterevidence.

“Generics are resistant to counter evidence; for example, the claim”

• cites [36] 36. R. R. Schmeck, D. Lockhart, Introverts and extraverts require different learning en- vironments. Educ. Leadersh. 40, 54-55 (1983).Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Generics may imply that a statement is normatively correct or ideal.

“Generics may also imply that a statement is normatively correct or ideal (39,40,42,43).”

• cites [39] 39. S. Prasada, E. M. Dillingham, Principled and statistical connections in common sense conception. Cognition 99, 73-112 (2006). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [40] 40. S. Prasada, E. M. Dillingham, Representation of principled connections: A window onto the formal aspect of common sense conception. Cogn. Sci. 33, 401-448 (2009). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [42] 42. A. Orvell, E. Kross, S. A. Gelman, How "you" makes meaning. Science 355, 1299-1302 (2017). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [43] 43. D. Wodak, S.-J. Leslie, M. Rhodes, What a loaded generalization: Generics and social cognition. Philos. Compass 10, 625-635 (2015). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Generics imply that a feature is conceptually central.

“generics imply that a feature is conceptually central (37)(38)(39)(40)”

• cites (37)(38)(39)(40)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Participants appeared more confident about drawing conclusions when the conclusions were said to have the backing of a research study.

“Participants appeared more confident about drawing conclusions when they were not just stipulated but were also said to have the backing of a research study.”

Bare generics were viewed as more important than nongenerics, including the most subtle form.

“We thus replicated that bare generics were viewed as more important than nongenerics, including even the most subtle form (only differing in whether sentence was phrased with present or past tense verbs), but also that anchoring a general conclusion to scientific research by means of a framed”

The most common way to express generalizations is through generic statements about categories.

“The most common means of expressing generalizations is via generic language statements regarding categories, such as”

• cites (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)Not checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Generics appear to be a default mode of generalization.

“They appear to be a default mode of generalization”

• cites [32] 32. S.-J. Leslie, S. A. Gelman, Quantified statements are recalled as generics: Evidence from preschool children and adults. Cognit. Psychol. 64, 186-214 (2012). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Most prior research provided a starker contrast between generic and nongeneric than study 2 did.

“Language can signal nongenericity in a rich variety of ways, and most prior research has provided a starker contrast between generic and nongeneric than was provided in study 2 (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35).”

• cites [28] 28. S. A. Graham, S. A. Gelman, J. Clarke, Generics license 30-month-olds' inferences about the atypical properties of novel kinds. Dev. Psychol. 52, 1353-1362 (2016). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [29] 29. M. A. Hollander, S. A. Gelman, J. Star, Children's interpretation of generic noun phrases. Dev. Psychol. 38, 883-894 (2002). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [30] 30. B. Mannheim, S. A. Gelman, C. Escalante, M. Huayhua, R. Puma, A developmental analysis of generic nouns in Southern Peruvian Quechua. Lang. Learn. Dev. 7, 1-23 (2010). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Language can signal nongenericity in many different ways.

“Language can signal nongenericity in a rich variety of ways, and most prior research has provided a starker contrast between generic and nongeneric than was provided in study 2 (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35).”

• cites [28] 28. S. A. Graham, S. A. Gelman, J. Clarke, Generics license 30-month-olds' inferences about the atypical properties of novel kinds. Dev. Psychol. 52, 1353-1362 (2016). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [29] 29. M. A. Hollander, S. A. Gelman, J. Star, Children's interpretation of generic noun phrases. Dev. Psychol. 38, 883-894 (2002). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [30] 30. B. Mannheim, S. A. Gelman, C. Escalante, M. Huayhua, R. Puma, A developmental analysis of generic nouns in Southern Peruvian Quechua. Lang. Learn. Dev. 7, 1-23 (2010). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

Authors showed an overwhelming tendency to treat limited samples as supporting general conclusions through universalizing statements.

“Instead, authors showed an overwhelming tendency to treat limited samples as supporting general conclusions, by means of universalizing statements (e.g.,”

The tendency to ignore variation, well documented in participant recruitment, is echoed in scientific writing.

“The tendency to ignore variation, well-documented in participant recruitment, is echoed in scientific writing.”

Studies 3a to 3d provide further evidence that online and undergraduate student samples used generic language as a cue to evaluate the importance of research findings.

“Overall, studies 3a to 3d provide further evidence that online and undergraduate student samples used generic language as a cue to evaluate the importance of research findings.”

Generic language in scientific articles may lead readers to reach exaggerated conclusions.

“First, generic language in scientific articles may lead readers to reach exaggerated conclusions.”

The widespread use of generics suggests a widespread tendency on the part of authors to gloss over variation.

“Namely, the widespread use of generics suggests a widespread tendency on the part of authors to gloss over variation.”

Common language practices contribute to a gap between the limitations of research evidence and the generality of conclusions.

“Common language practices thus contribute to a gap between the limitations of research evidence and the generality of conclusions.”

Most of the experimental studies did not include professionals in the field.

“Second, most of our experimental studies did not include professionals in the field (e.g., students of psychology, research psychologists), who have greater knowledge and expertise and thus might more easily overlook how a paper was written in evaluating the importance or generality of the conclusions.”

Anchoring a general conclusion to scientific research by means of a framed generic appeared to convey the most powerful messages to readers.

“sentence was phrased with present or past tense verbs), but also that anchoring a general conclusion to scientific research by means of a framed generic (e.g.,”

The present study may underestimate the frequency of generics in scientific writing because it focused strictly on sentences describing study results in titles, highlights, and abstracts.

“The present study may even underestimate the frequency of generics in scientific writing because we focused strictly on sentences describing study results in titles, highlights, and abstracts, thus excluding summaries of prior findings in the literature reviews, or implications in the discussion sections.”

In the published literature, nongenerics typically manipulated the noun phrase itself, drawing attention more explicitly to the limited scope of the generalization.

“For example, whereas study 2 only manipulated tense, in the published literature, nongenerics typically manipulated the noun phrase itself (e.g.,”

• cites [28] 28. S. A. Graham, S. A. Gelman, J. Clarke, Generics license 30-month-olds' inferences about the atypical properties of novel kinds. Dev. Psychol. 52, 1353-1362 (2016). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [29] 29. M. A. Hollander, S. A. Gelman, J. Star, Children's interpretation of generic noun phrases. Dev. Psychol. 38, 883-894 (2002). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.

• cites [30] 30. B. Mannheim, S. A. Gelman, C. Escalante, M. Huayhua, R. Puma, A developmental analysis of generic nouns in Southern Peruvian Quechua. Lang. Learn. Dev. 7, 1-23 (2010). sourceNot checked yet

  Not checked in the free run.