Motivational drivers of costly information search.

Acquiring information that aids decision-making is subject to a trade-off of accuracy versus cost, given that time, effort, or money are required to obtain decision-relevant information. Three studies (N = 2010) investigated the motivational dynamics shaping the priorities that govern this trade-off. Motivational orientations related to both the decision-making process and its outcome were examined. Regulatory focus theory describes two broad orientations to goal pursuit: promotion focus, prioritizing eager achievement, versus prevention focus, prioritizing vigilant security. We hypothesized that when the framing of a decision-making task activates a prevention focus rather than a promotion focus, individuals would be more willing to assume the costs of acquiring additional information before making their decisions. To test this hypothesis, participants made incentivized decisions with the option of acquiring additional information before making a final decision; importantly, obtaining this information incurred financial costs. Results consistently confirmed that prevention-focused decision makers were indeed more willing to assume the costs of acquiring additional information than promotion-focused individuals. The first two studies involved a scenario where participants were indifferent to the specific outcome of the decision process; accuracy was their only concern. In the final study, searchable, accuracy-enhancing information was also related to decision makers' partisan political preferences. Regulatory focus and the preference for partisan-congenial information were observed to be co-occurring but functionally orthogonal drivers of costly information search. Thus, prevention-framed messages can motivate the search for decision-relevant information, even when this search is costly and could lead to disagreeable data.

The Rational Agent Benchmark for Data Visualization.

Understanding how helpful a visualization is from experimental results is difficult because the observed performance is confounded with aspects of the study design, such as how useful the information that is visualized is for the task. We develop a rational agent framework for designing and interpreting visualization experiments. Our framework conceives two experiments with the same setup: one with behavioral agents (human subjects), and the other one with a hypothetical rational agent. A visualization is evaluated by comparing the expected performance of behavioral agents to that of a rational agent under different assumptions. Using recent visualization decision studies from the literature, we demonstrate how the framework can be used to pre-experimentally evaluate the experiment design by bounding the expected improvement in performance from having access to visualizations, and post-experimentally to deconfound errors of information extraction from errors of optimization, among other analyses.

The social media discourse of engaged partisans is toxic even when politics are irrelevant.

Prevailing theories of partisan incivility on social media suggest that it derives from disagreement about political issues or from status competition between groups. This study-which analyzes the commenting behavior of Reddit users across diverse cultural contexts (subreddits)-tests the alternative hypothesis that such incivility derives in large part from a selection effect: Toxic people are especially likely to opt into discourse in partisan contexts. First, we examined commenting behavior across over 9,000 unique cultural contexts (subreddits) and confirmed that discourse is indeed more toxic in partisan (e.g. r/progressive, r/conservatives) than in nonpartisan contexts (e.g. r/movies, r/programming). Next, we analyzed hundreds of millions of comments from over 6.3 million users and found robust evidence that: (i) the discourse of people whose behavior is especially toxic in partisan contexts is also especially toxic in nonpartisan contexts (i.e. people are not politics-only toxicity specialists); and (ii) when considering only nonpartisan contexts, the discourse of people who also comment in partisan contexts is more toxic than the discourse of people who do not. These effects were not driven by socialization processes whereby people overgeneralized toxic behavioral norms they had learned in partisan contexts. In contrast to speculation about the need for partisans to engage beyond their echo chambers, toxicity in nonpartisan contexts was higher among people who also comment in both left-wing and right-wing contexts (bilaterally engaged users) than among people who also comment in only left-wing or right-wing contexts (unilaterally engaged users). The discussion considers implications for democratic functioning and theories of polarization.