The Easiness Effect

Who comes up with journal acronyms? I would not have picked PUS, but there may not be much choice when your journal is aptly titled Public Understanding of Science. In a recent paper (cited in the picture below), the authors tackle the easiness effect based on a study in Germany. With German efficiency, the title of the article tells you exactly what it’s about: “When science becomes too easy: Science popularization inclines laypeople to underrate their dependence on experts”

I recommend reading the entire article in full if you’re interested; I will not do justice to the details as I pick and choose what caught my eye in this blog post. One premise of the study is that experts and non-experts (referred to as laypeople in the article) process incoming scientific information differently. This certainly impacts how one chooses the appropriate pedagogy to teach science at different levels depending on student background. As science educators, we should strive to educate all students regardless of their chosen major/specialty to evaluate scientific claims fairly and critically – this is perhaps even more crucial for students not planning to major in science (or who “hated” science in school).

About the paradoxical position that non-scientists find themselves, the author writes: “[They] frequently have to judge the validity of scientific knowledge claims that are of great relevance for their lives, but they lack the necessary epistemic capabilities to make such judgments adequately. The result is that laypeople have to make use of the division of expertise and consult pertinent others on whose evaluation they can rely. By deferring to experts, laypeople can make indirect use of the specialized knowledge required for adequate validity judgments.” Some words of caution are in order: “[This] does not mean that laypeople should trust others blindly and unconditionally. Individuals should calibrate their trust to avoid misinformation by assessing the expert sources for their pertinence, competence, and benevolence.” Given the times we live in, this advice seems particularly timely. Previously, I had only thought about pertinence and competence, and had not considered benevolence – but I think I understand what the authors are getting at.

The study compares popularized (i.e. simplified) versions of science articles to ones that are more technical, but still relatively readable. All articles were related to health for wider reader interest, and articles of each type were paired up to cover the same specific topical material. All articles chosen had a central message implying a causal linkage, e.g., “eating chilies decreases blood pressure” and “coffee protects against prostate cancer”. Source information was removed so that participants did not know the identity of the publication or the author. None of the participants had advanced training in the health professions. The study assessed a number of variables and I think it was overall well designed, at least in my limited opinion as a non-expert in this type of research. My one beef is that the sample size was rather small, and it would be interesting to see similar larger-scale studies.

The results: Not surprisingly, popularized articles were deemed “easier” to comprehend. Participants also “agreed” more with the conclusions of the popularized version compared to the more technical one. Interestingly, participants did not rate popularized versions as more credible. Earlier studies that had the same effect were cited. The suggested reason for this is that laypeople “distinguish between what they consider to be objectively credible in terms of official science, and what they personally accept as true.” This is an important lesson to those of us who are scientists. Just because I communicate something that is “backed up by good science” and seems so clear and compelling to me, does not mean it will change someone’s mind or prior beliefs. It might, but it might not.

The most interesting result from the study is that “laypeople were more confident about their own claim judgments after reading popularized depictions. [They had] a higher trust in their own judgment based on current knowledge, and conversely, a weaker desire for advice from a more knowledgeable source (italics mine). Interestingly, preference for [this] strategy… after obtaining further content information was not affected by either time of measurement or text genre.” That’s a scary thought. In the age of easily accessible information of varying credibility, a well-placed popular article could do great good or harm. It also makes me wonder whether this phenomenon extends beyond science. When I read any popular article outside my field, does that weaken my desire for advice from a more knowledgeable source? I’d like to think not, but unless I was in “researcher mode” trying to get to the bottom of something, I could well be deceiving myself in a buoy of confidence from having “comprehended” something I read. Worse, expertise in one area sometimes goes to our head and we think that we also know better in other areas. Curse of the Ph.D., perhaps.

The authors speculate that a possible explanation for this strategy is that it “might be considered the socially desirable action. Schools focus on encouraging students to think critically by themselves, neglecting the need to judge which expert to trust and when to defer judgment to experts.” The authors close with a section on “Implications for science communication and education”. They suggest caution and thoughtfulness on the part of those who communicate science “when adapting scientific information for lay readers” and they affirm the importance of continuing to communicate clearly and accessibly. Interestingly, there is research suggesting that “the easiness effect can be mitigated by pointing to the controversial and complex nature of scientific topics,” but only partially.

All this reminds me of those moments when I think I should try to be a little less clear in presenting scientific topics and knowledge in the classroom. The clarity sometimes lead to students deceiving themselves that they understand something that they don’t. (That’s why doing some homework after every class is important!) Make the students work a little harder cognitively to “make it stick”.