Less is More? The Impact of Discursive Complexity on the Evaluation of Moral Arguments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/sctconf202347Keywords:
Collective Decision Making, Natural Language Processing, Moral Dilemmas, Linguistic Complexity, Large Scale ExperimentAbstract
The belief that using longer and more complex words makes a text appear better written is very common among university students. However, previous literature demonstrates that this is a myth: writing with greater simplicity produces the best results. Processing fluency (subjective experience of ease of processing information) robustly affects people's judgment on a wide variety of social dimensions; in particular, linguistic fluency is positively associated with intelligence, persuasiveness, truthfulness, among others. Previous studies have focused primarily on how people process text at the individual level; however, in the real world, we must often interact with others to solve problems through argumentation and deliberation. In this paper we investigate the effect of linguistic complexity on the perceived validity of arguments about controversial moral issues, and on the likelihood of agreement. For this purpose, we conducted three studies showing that the use of long words induces worse argumentation in:
- A large-scale behavioral experiment (N=10,548), where arguments with longer words receive lower ratings.
- A behavioral study in which (N=768) participants deliberated in online chat rooms on moral issues, with the task of trying to reach agreement, and where the probability of reaching consensus was decreased by the use of longer words.
- A randomized controlled experiment (N=600), where we observed that the use of long words significantly reduced perceived fluency, which in turn correlated positively with perceived validity.
In conclusion, this paper presents converging evidence that the use of long words (an indicator of linguistic complexity) leads to a worse appraisal of moral arguments.
References
Oppenheimer DM. Consequences of erudite vernacular utilized irrespective of necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2006; 20(2):139-156.
Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and social psychology review 2009; 13(3):219-235.
Dragojevic M, Giles H. I don't like you because you're hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research 2016; 42(3):396-420.
Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM. Predicting short-term stock fluctuations by using processing fluency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2006; 103:9369-9372.
Whittlesea BWA, Williams LD. Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don’t? The unexpected basis of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica 1998; 98:141-166.
Alter AL, Oppenheimer DM. Suppressing secrecy through metacognitive ease: Cognitive fluency encourages self-disclosure. Psychological science 2009; 20(11):1414-1420.
McGlone MS, Tofighbakhsh J. Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science 2000; 11:424-428
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Federico Barrera-Lemarchand, Victoria Lescano-Charreau, Julieta Ruiz, Nuria Cáceres, Joaquín Navajas (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
