Summary
A plain language summary of what your data says about cognitive distance: whether people understood the system, not just whether they finished the task.
Test data included
Clear language
24
Strong alignment
People generally understood what happened and could explain the system’s behavior.
Institutional language
49
Needs attention
Misunderstanding shows up repeatedly. The interface may need clearer explanations.
Distance gap
+25
Institutional higher
Institutional minus clear language (lower CDI is better)
Counted complete
33
27 clear · 11 inst.
27 in Clear language, 11 in Institutional language · 103 completed tasks
In your sample (27 in Clear language, 11 in Institutional language · 103 completed tasks), people using institutional language showed higher cognitive distance than those using clear language.
That supports the manuscript's core claim: users can complete digital tasks while still not understanding why the system behaved as it did, especially when interfaces use institutional, opaque language.
Caution: ease, effort, or completion rate differ between versions. Compare cognitive-distance results carefully.
Key statistical read: cognitive distance p < 0.001 · understanding p 0.002 · median task time 0.9 min (Clear language) vs 1.1 min (Institutional language). Full tests and sample-size planning are on Statistical checks.
Action needed before transparency results are complete
One number that summarizes how far people's understanding drifts from what the system actually did. Lower is better.
Clear language
24
Cognitive Distance
Strong alignment
0 = perfect alignment · 100 = maximum distance
People generally understood what happened and could explain the system’s behavior.
Institutional language
49
Cognitive Distance
Needs attention
0 = perfect alignment · 100 = maximum distance
Misunderstanding shows up repeatedly. The interface may need clearer explanations.
How to read this
Each dimension scores 0–100. Lower means people's mental model matched what the system actually did.
Lower bars mean better alignment with what the system did. Bar color shows how far understanding drifted.
Did people feel they understood what the system did?
Clear language: 5.6/7 self-reported understanding · Institutional language: 4.4/7
Could people predict outcomes before seeing the result?
Clear language: 84% correct predictions · Institutional language: 46%
Did people feel sure about their decisions?
Clear language: confidence 4.1/5 · Institutional language: 3.5/5
Could people see why outcomes happened?
Clear language: 83% comprehension · Institutional language: 49%
79 open answers still need scoring on the Score open answers page.
How current data relates to the cognitive distance paper. Open Statistical checks for full p values and sample planning.
| Status | Claim | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Supported | Cognitive distance is distinct from task difficulty. People can finish tasks while still feeling unsure. | Participants report how well they understood the system, how confident they felt, and whether they could explain outcomes. This is separate from whether they clicked through successfully. |
| Mixed | Both interface versions were equally difficult to use. Differences should reflect language clarity, not task hardness. | One or more fairness checks differ between versions. Interpret cognitive-distance gaps cautiously. |
| Supported | Clear language should let people complete each service task faster. | Version A: 0.9 min median vs Version B: 1.1 min. Clear language is faster, which supports reduced cognitive load. |
| Supported | Institutional language should show higher cognitive distance than Clear language. | Institutional language shows a higher Cognitive Distance Index. People understood less despite completing similar tasks. |
| Supported | People using institutional language struggle more to predict system outcomes. | Institutional language participants were less accurate at predicting outcomes before seeing results. |
| Supported | Institutional language hides why outcomes happen (lower transparency). | Institutional language scored lower on comprehension and explaining what happened. |
Type a question in plain language. The assistant reads your current study numbers and explains them without jargon.
AI SUMMARY
AI SUMMARY
The current study suggests that the use of institutional language significantly increases cognitive distance among participants. With a sample size of 27 individuals exposed to clear language and 11 to institutional language, the findings indicate a notable disparity in understanding and prediction accuracy. For instance, participants using clear language reported a self-understanding score of 5.6 out of 7, while those using institutional language scored only 4.4. Similarly, prediction accuracy dropped from 84% in the clear language group to just 46% in the institutional language group. These results point to a clear trend: institutional language may hinder comprehension and confidence, leading to greater cognitive distance.
Statistical analyses confirm that these differences are significant, with p-values well below the conventional threshold of 0.05. While the current sample size provides strong early evidence for the study's claims, increasing the number of participants could enhance the robustness of the findings. Specifically, while the results for understanding, prediction accuracy, and comprehension accuracy are already statistically significant, further data collection could bolster confidence in these outcomes. Moving forward, it would be beneficial to recruit additional participants to validate these findings and explore the nuances of how institutional language impacts cognitive processing.