Generic language in scientific communication

Abstract

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.

The Unintended Consequences of the Things We Say: What Generic Statements Communicate to Children About Unmentioned Categories

“…This idea that generic statements may communicate stereotypes about unmentioned groups builds on a growing body of research demonstrating the power of generic statements in transmitting social stereotypes about explicitly mentioned groups to young children—by signaling how to carve up the social world into meaningful categories (Rhodes, Leslie, Bianchi, & Chalik, 2018), promoting essentialist beliefs about social groups (Rhodes et al, 2012), and consequently increasing social stereotyping and negative intergroup relations (e.g., Hammond & Cimpian, 2017; Leslie, 2017; Rhodes, Leslie, Saunders, Dunham, & Cimpian, 2018). Although we primarily focused on children, generic statements also bias the beliefs of adults (as confirmed here, among other studies, e.g., Cimpian et al, 2010; Rhodes et al, 2012) and have broad consequences for reasoning across domains, including how they interpret and value scientific research (DeJesus, Callanan, Solis, & Gelman, 2019).…”

Impact of review method on the conclusions of clinical reviews: A systematic review on dietary interventions in depression as a case in point

“…Authors of narrative reviews tend to report stronger conclusions in the abstracts than in the discussion sections among the study types. Word limits of abstracts may force authors to generate more generic conclusions [ 59 ]. As most readers may only read the title and abstract, we think the abstract should already convey the right message to begin with.…”

Racial Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the Future

“…The majority of psychology publications fail to report the racial demographics of their samples (DeJesus et al, 2019) or report simplified dichotomies (e.g., White vs. non-White). Moving forward, authors could report the breakdown of the full racial demographics of their samples (e.g., 70% White, 20% Asian, 8% Black, 2% Multiracial).…”

“…Yet decades of critiques advocating for this seem to have gone unnoticed (see Arnett, 2008; Bell & Hertz, 1976; Betancourt & López, 1993; Dunham & Olson, 2016; Graham, 1992; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010; Kline, Shansudhenn, & Broesch, 2018; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; McLoyd, 1990; McLoyd & Randolph, 1984; Medin, Ojalehto, Marin, & Bang, 2017; Nielsen & Haun, 2016; Nielsen, Haun, Kärtner, & Legare, 2017; Rowley & Camacho, 2015; Syed, 2017; Zuckerman, 1990). In fact, DeJesus, Callanan, Solis, and Gelman (2019) found that across 1,149 articles published in 2015 and 2016 in 11 psychology journals, 73% of them never even mentioned the race of their participants.…”