{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02483900643974241, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004599816007359705, 'mean_word_length': 5.634146341463414, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To explain or not: How process explanations impact assessments of predictors.

When presenting their predictions, predictors may also provide varying levels of information regarding how they arrived at their predictions. However, it is unclear what role these explanations play in the resulting evaluations of the predictors. In 3 experiments, the authors demonstrate that when a predictor provides a brief explanation, individuals evaluate the predictor less positively than when a predictor simply provides no explanation or provides a detailed explanation for their prediction. This happens because a brief explanation lacks details, from which individuals infer the predictor did not do an in-depth analysis, and judge the predictor accordingly. Without an explanation (with detailed explanation), individuals assume (infer) predictors arrive at their predictions via sufficient in-depth analysis. The authors conclude with a discussion of implications for theory and predictors as well as future directions for research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).