Linguistic Complexity Reduces the Perceived Validity of Moral Arguments

BARRERA LEMARCHAND, FEDERICO; NAVAJAS, JOAQUIN

Congreso; 9th International Conference on Computational Social Science (IC2S2); 2023

The belief that using more complex and lengthier words will make a text seem better written is highly prevalent among college students. However, previous literature has proven this to be a myth: writing simpler and clearer provides the best results. Processing fluency, or the subjective experience of ease with which people process information, reliably influences people’s judgments across a broad range of social dimensions. Previous studies on this phenomenon have primarily focused on how people process written texts at the individual level. However, in many real-world situations, we find ourselves interacting with others, and trying to solve problems that may be complex in nature, through argumentation and deliberation. In this work, we ask whether linguistic complexity reduces the perceived validity of arguments about controversial moral issues, and whether it negatively impacts the probability of people reaching consensus on those issues. To address this overreaching aim, we focused on the effect of word length as a previously established standard index of linguistic complexity. Across four studies, performed in different contexts, we show that the use of longer words is a driver of poorer argumentation in:-Study 1: An open asynchronous online discussion forum (where we analyzed 21,839 posts). -Study 2: A large-scale behavioral experiment (N=10,548) eliciting changes of mind; -Study 3: A behavioral study where participants (N=768) deliberated in online chatrooms, and were prompted to try to reach consensus. -Study 4: A randomized controlled experiment (N=600, pre-registered) where we manipulated word length (Study 4).These studies provide converging evidence that using long words (a proxy of linguistic complexity and disfluency) makes moral arguments seem less valid. In conclusion, these results suggest that brevity and simplicity are key drivers for good argumentation and deliberation on controversial moral issues.