Research using the game League of Legends as a cultural setting shows this pattern clearly. Experienced players treated generalizations more narrowly and changed their interpretations with context. Less experienced listeners extended generalizations more widely. At the same time, speakers with expertise did not simplify or hedge their generalizations when told the audience was inexperienced, revealing a gap between how messages are produced and how they are received.
That gap matters for learning, safety, and inclusion. If novices overgeneralize from everyday statements, they can form inaccurate beliefs or make poor choices, yet experts may assume those statements will be interpreted more narrowly. Wondering how to bridge that divide leads to practical questions: How should experts reframe statements to support beginners? What signals help novices calibrate their assumptions? Follow the link to see how these findings connect to teaching, policy, and making information accessible for everyone.
Abstract
Generalizations, such as “ducks are birds” and “ducks carry avian flu,” are a common way of conveying information about the world, yet their implied prevalence—how broadly they should be applied—can vary widely. To interpret how broadly a generalization should be applied, listeners rely on prior knowledge. Listeners who have considerable experience (“experts”) with the subject being discussed may thus interpret a generalization differently than those without such experience (“novices”). In the present study, we investigated the ways in which experts and novices differ in how they interpret generalizations, using the esport League of Legends as a cultural microcosm. In the process, we investigated the extent to which expert listeners discount generalizations with which they disagree. We found that novices tended to interpret generalizations more broadly than experts, with only experts adjusting their interpretations based on the context. We also investigated whether expert speakers, when addressing novices, avoid generalizations that novices are likely to interpret differently. In line with research investigating the curse of knowledge and the challenge of designing utterances for specific audiences, we found that speakers did not adjust their use of generalizations when explicitly told that their audience was inexperienced. Taken together, these results point to novice listeners interpreting generalizations as applying more broadly than expert speakers intend. Future research can help clarify the practical impact of such a mismatch by examining how generalizations are used in relation to speakers’ and listeners’ goals.
