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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Plain Language Summaries of Psychological Meta-Analyses (2025) · cites this paper as Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al., 2021
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).”
From A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Plain Language Summaries of Psychological Meta-Analyses (2025) · cites this paper as 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.”
From A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Plain Language Summaries of Psychological Meta-Analyses (2025) · cites this paper as Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. (2021)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research
Stoll, M., Kerwer, M., Lieb, K., & Chasiotis, A. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268789 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citationKerwer, M., Jonas, M., Stoll, M., Benz, G., & Chasiotis, A. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000570 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., Stricker, J., Günther, A., & Rosman, T.
- Affiliations
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) (DE)
- Universität Trier (DE)
- Venue
- Collabra: Psychology
- Publisher
- University of California Press
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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