University of Sussex
Browse

Spelling errors in brief computer-mediated texts implicitly lead to linearly additive penalties in trustworthiness

Download (965.76 kB)
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-10, 03:50 authored by Harry WitchelHarry Witchel, Christopher I Jones, Georgina A Thompson, Carina E I Westling, Juan Romero, Alessia Nicotra, Bruno Maag, Hugo CritchleyHugo Critchley
Background: Spelling errors in documents lead to reduced trustworthiness, but the mechanism for weighing the psychological assessment (i.e., integrative versus dichotomous) has not been elucidated. We instructed participants to rate content of texts, revealing that their implicit trustworthiness judgments show marginal differences specifically caused by spelling errors. Methods: An online experiment with 100 English-speaking participants were asked to rate 27 short text excerpts (~100 words) about multiple sclerosis in the format of unmoderated health forum posts. In a counterbalanced design, some excerpts had no typographic errors, some had two errors, and some had five errors. Each participant rated nine paragraphs with a counterbalanced mixture of zero, two or five errors. A linear mixed effects model (LME) was assessed with error number as a fixed effect and participants as a random effect. Results: Using an unnumbered scale with anchors of “completely untrustworthy” (left) and “completely trustworthy” (right) recorded as 0 to 100, two spelling errors resulted in a penalty to trustworthiness of 5.91 ± 1.70 (robust standard error) compared to the reference excerpts with zero errors, while the penalty for five errors was 13.5 ± 2.47; all three conditions were significantly different from each other (P < 0.001). Conclusion: Participants who rated information about multiple sclerosis in a context mimicking an online health forum implicitly assigned typographic errors nearly linearly additive trustworthiness penalties. This contravenes any dichotomous heuristic or local ceiling effect on trustworthiness penalties for these numbers of typographic errors. It supports an integrative model for psychological judgments of trustworthiness.

History

Publication status

  • Published

File Version

  • Published version

Journal

Frontiers in Psychology

ISSN

1664-1078

Publisher

Frontiers Media

Volume

13

Page range

1-8

Article number

a873844

Department affiliated with

  • BSMS Neuroscience Publications

Research groups affiliated with

  • Sussex Neuroscience Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2022-06-10

First Open Access (FOA) Date

2022-06-10

First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date

2022-06-09

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC