Easiness versus scientificness: Under which conditions do plain language summaries increase or decrease epistemic trust?

Numerous scientific disciplines have lately advocated for a broader use of plain language summaries (PLS) to facilitate access to scientific works and to support laypeople's informed decision making. However, PLS may likely be prone to the “easiness effect” (i.e. being judged as more trustworthy due to a higher level of accessibility) and the “scientificness effect” (i.e. being judged as less trustworthy due to avoiding jargon and mainly presenting core findings). Both effects have already been demonstrated separately, but have not yet been investigated jointly. Especially with regard to PLS, the question remains which of the two effects outweighs the other, and if there are potential interactions between them on epistemic trust. For instance, it seems plausible to assume that a text combining high levels of “easiness” and “scientificness” elicits the highest levels of trust. To further investigate these issues, a preregistered online within-person experimental study with N = 1,440 participants (general population sample) is currently being carried out. Participants read four summaries of psychological studies that are systematically varied regarding their “easiness” (low vs. high) and “scientificness” (low vs. high). After each text, readers rate both text credibility as well as author trustworthiness. The effects of “scientificness” and “easiness” and their interaction on trust will be analyzed via mixed models. While the study is still ongoing, results will be available for the poster session. We will discuss implications for writing PLS in general as well as for the challenge of balancing out “scientificness” and “easiness” in (written) science communication.