Cited by 57Academic Publishing and Open AccessText Readability and SimplificationPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology

Open access
Kerwer, Martin, Chasiotis, Anita, Stricker, Johannes, Günther, Armin, Rosman, Tom·2021·Collabra: Psychology

Abstract

Easily comprehensible summaries of scholarly articles that are provided alongside ‘ordinary’ scientific abstracts, so-called plain language summaries, can be a powerful tool for communicating research findings to a wider audience. Using an experimental within-person-design in a preregistered study (N = 166), we showed that the comprehensibility for laypeople was higher for plain language summaries compared to scientific abstracts in a psychological journal and also found that laypeople actually understood the corresponding information more correctly for plain language summaries. Moreover, in line with the easiness effect of science popularization, individuals perceived plain language summaries as more credible and were more confident about their ability to make a decision based on plain language summaries. If and under which circumstances this higher perceived credibility is justified, is discussed together with other practical implications and theoretical implications of our findings. In sum, our research further strengthens arguments for providing plain language summaries of psychological research findings by demonstrating that they actually work in practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1525/collabra.18898

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a prior study, German university students rated PLSs to be more comprehensible than the corresponding scientific abstracts and also acquired more knowledge on the summarized studies when reading PLSs.

    “In this study, German university students rated PLSs to be more comprehensible than the corresponding scientific abstracts and also acquired more knowledge on the summarized studies when reading PLSs.”
  • A prior study of the project suggested that English PLSs of individual psychological studies achieve their aim of fostering the public understanding of science.

    “One exception is a prior study of our project which suggested that English PLSs of individual psychological studies achieve their aim of fostering the public understanding of science (Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al., 2021).”
  • The study replicated prior findings of Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. (2021) on a conceptual level in a general population sample and with German PLSs on psychological meta-analyses.

    “We were thus able to replicate prior findings of Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. (2021) on a conceptual level in a general population sample and with German PLSs on psychological meta-analyses.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., Stricker, J., Günther, A., & Rosman, T.
Affiliations
  • Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) (DE)
  • Universität Trier (DE)
Venue
Collabra: Psychology
Published
2021
Volume
7
Issue
1
ISSN
2474-7394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3128842176
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6
FWCI
8.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Collabra Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
plain language summaries, scientific abstracts, science communication, perceived credibility, decision confidence, science popularization, knowledge acquisition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review