An official website of the United States government
Abstract People’s beliefs are influenced by interactions within their communities. The propagation of this influence through conversational social networks should impact the degree to which community members synchronize their beliefs. To investigate, we recruited a sample of 140 participants and constructed fourteen 10-member communities. Participants first rated the accuracy of a set of statements (pre-test) and were then provided with relevant evidence about them. Then, participants discussed the statements in a series of conversational interactions, following pre-determined network structures (clustered/non-clustered). Finally, they rated the accuracy of the statements again (post-test). The results show that belief synchronization, measuring the increase in belief similarity among individuals within a community from pre-test to post-test, is influenced by the community’s conversational network structure. This synchronization is circumscribed by a degree of separation effect and is equivalent in the clustered and non-clustered networks. We also find that conversational content predicts belief change from pre-test to post-test.
more »
« less
The effect of accuracy instructions on Coronavirus‐related belief change following conversational interactions
Abstract In a high‐risk environment, such as during an epidemic, people are exposed to a large amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate. Following exposure, they typically discuss the information with each other. Here, we assess the effects of such conversations on beliefs. A sample of 126 M‐Turk participants rated the accuracy of a set of COVID‐19 statements, including accurate information, inaccurate information, and conspiracy theories (pre‐test). They were then paired and asked to discuss these statements (low epistemic condition) or to discuss only the statements they thought were accurate (high epistemic condition). Finally, they rated the accuracy of the initial statements again (post‐test). We do not find an effect of the epistemic condition on belief change. However, we find that individuals are sensitive to their conversational partners and change their beliefs according to their partners' conveyed beliefs. In exploratory analyses, we report predictors of believing COVID‐19 conspiracies.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2027225
- PAR ID:
- 10446171
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Applied Cognitive Psychology
- Volume:
- 36
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 0888-4080
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- p. 820-829
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Misinformation exposure can cause inaccurate beliefs and memories. These unwanted outcomes can be mitigated when misinformation reminders—veracity-labeled statements that repeat earlier-read false information—appear before corrections with true information. The present experiment used eye tracking to examine the role of attention while encoding corrective details in the beneficial effects of reminder-based corrections. Participants read headlines in a belief-updating task that included a within-subjects manipulation of correction format. They first rated the familiarity and veracity of true and false headlines (Phase 1). Then, they read true headlines that corrected false headlines or affirmed true headlines (Phase 2). The true headlines appeared (1) without veracity labels, (2) with veracity labels, or (3) with misinformation reminders and veracity labels. Finally, participants re-rated the veracity of the Phase 1 headlines and rated their memory for whether those headlines were corrected in Phase 2 (Phase 3). Reminder-based corrections led to the greatest reduction in false beliefs, best high confidence recognition of corrections, and earliest eye fixations to the true details of corrections during encoding in Phase 2. Corrections remembered with the highest confidence rating were associated with more and earlier fixations to true details in correction statements in Phase 2. Collectively, these results suggest that misinformation reminders directed attention to corrective details, which improved encoding and subsequent memory for veracity information. These results have applied implications in suggesting that optimal correction formats should include features that direct attention to, and thus support encoding of, the contrast between false and true information.more » « less
-
Abstract This study examined how inferences about epistemic competence and generalized labeling errors influence children’s selective word learning. Three- to 4-year-olds (N = 128) learned words from informants who asked questions about objects, mentioning either correct or incorrect labels. Such questions do not convey stark differences in informants’ epistemic competence. Inaccurate labels, however, generate error signals that can lead to weaker encoding of novel information. Preschoolers retained novel labels from both informants but were slower to respond in the Inaccurate Labeler condition. When the test procedure was not sensitive to the strength of information encoding, children performed above chance in both conditions and their response times did not differ. These results suggest that epistemic-level inferences and error generalizations influence preschoolers’ selective word learning concurrently.more » « less
-
BackgroundHealth care interactions may require patients to share with a physician information they believe but is incorrect. While a key piece of physicians’ work is educating their patients, people’s concerns of being seen as uninformed or incompetent by physicians may lead them to think that sharing incorrect health beliefs comes with a penalty. We tested people’s perceptions of patients who share incorrect information and how these perceptions vary by the reasonableness of the belief and its centrality to the patient’s disease. DesignWe recruited 399 United States Prolific.co workers (357 retained after exclusions), 200 Prolific.co workers who reported having diabetes (139 after exclusions), and 244 primary care physicians (207 after exclusions). Participants read vignettes describing patients with type 2 diabetes sharing health beliefs that were central or peripheral to the management of diabetes. Beliefs included true and incorrect statements that were reasonable or unreasonable to believe. Participants rated how a doctor would perceive the patient, the patient’s ability to manage their disease, and the patient’s trust in doctors. ResultsParticipants rated patients who shared more unreasonable beliefs more negatively. There was an extra penalty for incorrect statements central to the patient’s diabetes management (sample 1). These results replicated for participants with type 2 diabetes (sample 2) and physician participants (sample 3). ConclusionsParticipants believed that patients who share incorrect information with their physicians will be penalized for their honesty. Physicians need to be educated on patients’ concerns so they can help patients disclose what may be most important for education. HighlightsUnderstanding how people think they will be perceived in a health care setting can help us understand what they may be wary to share with their physicians. People think that patients who share incorrect beliefs will be viewed negatively. Helping patients share incorrect beliefs can improve care.more » « less
-
Background. Vaccine misinformation has been widely spread on social media, but attempts to combat it have not taken advantage of the attributes of social media platforms for health education. Methods. The objective was to test the efficacy of moderated social media discussions about COVID-19 vaccines in private Facebook groups. Unvaccinated U.S. adults were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and randomized. In the intervention group, moderators posted two informational posts per day for 4 weeks and engaged in relationship-building interactions with group members. In the control group, participants received a referral to Facebook’s COVID-19 Information Center. Follow-up surveys with participants (N = 478) were conducted 6 weeks post-enrollment. Results. At 6 weeks follow-up, no differences were found in vaccination rates. Intervention participants were more likely to show improvements in their COVID-19 vaccination intentions (vs. stay same or decline) compared with control (p = .03). They also improved more in their intentions to encourage others to vaccinate for COVID-19. There were no differences in COVID-19 vaccine confidence or intentions between groups. General vaccine and responsibility to vaccinate were higher in the intervention compared with control. Most participants in the intervention group reported high levels of satisfaction. Participants engaged with content (e.g., commented, reacted) 11.8 times on average over the course of 4 weeks. Conclusions. Engaging with vaccine-hesitant individuals in private Facebook groups improved some COVID-19 vaccine-related beliefs and represents a promising strategy.more » « less
