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
27
Early warning
Some signs of confusion are appearing. Worth watching before drawing firm conclusions.
Institutional language
51
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
18
78 clear · 23 inst.
78 in Clear language, 23 in Institutional language · 72 completed tasks
In your sample (78 in Clear language, 23 in Institutional language · 72 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 · median task time 1.5 min (Clear language) vs 1.2 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
27
Cognitive Distance
Early warning
0 = perfect alignment · 100 = maximum distance
Some signs of confusion are appearing. Worth watching before drawing firm conclusions.
Institutional language
51
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: 5.4/7 self-reported understanding · Institutional language: 4.3/7
Could people predict outcomes before seeing the result?
Clear language: 80% correct predictions · Institutional language: 47%
Did people feel sure about their decisions?
Clear language: confidence 3.9/5 · Institutional language: 3.6/5
Could people see why outcomes happened?
Clear language: 81% comprehension · Institutional language: 54%
46 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. |
| Mixed | Clear language should let people complete each service task faster. | Version A: 1.5 min median vs Version B: 1.2 min. Institutional language was faster in this sample — review before scaling. |
| 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 investigates the impact of institutional language on cognitive distance, with preliminary findings suggesting that such language does indeed increase cognitive distance among participants. The sample included 78 individuals exposed to clear language and 23 individuals exposed to institutional language, with a total of 72 participants completing the tasks. The results indicate that participants who engaged with institutional language scored significantly higher on measures of cognitive distance compared to those who encountered clear language. For instance, the understanding dimension showed a stark contrast, with clear language participants scoring an average of 26.8, while those exposed to institutional language scored 45.8.
While some results are statistically significant, particularly in prediction accuracy and comprehension accuracy, the overall understanding scores did not quite reach the conventional threshold for significance. This suggests that while the trend is clear, further research is needed to solidify these findings. The current sample size may not be sufficient to draw definitive conclusions, particularly for dimensions like explanation quality and task completion speed, which did not yield significant results. To enhance the robustness of the study, it is recommended that future research includes a larger sample size, ideally around 46 participants for clear language and 20 for institutional language, to ensure that the findings can be confidently generalized. This next phase will help clarify the nuances of how institutional language affects cognitive processing and understanding.