The rational continued influence of misinformation.

Misinformation has become an increasingly topical field of research. Studies on the 'Continued Influence Effect' (CIE) show that misinformation continues to influence reasoning despite subsequent retraction. Current explanatory theories of the CIE tacitly assume continued reliance on misinformation is the consequence of a biased process. In the present work, we show why this perspective may be erroneous. Using a Bayesian formalism, we conceptualize the CIE as a scenario involving contradictory testimonies and incorporate the previously overlooked factors of the temporal dependence (misinformation precedes its retraction) between, and the perceived reliability of, misinforming and retracting sources. When considering such factors, we show the CIE to have normative backing. We demonstrate that, on aggregate, lay reasoners (N = 101) intuitively endorse the necessary assumptions that demarcate CIE as a rational process, still exhibit the standard effect, and appropriately penalize the reliability of contradicting sources. Individual-level analyses revealed that although many participants endorsed assumptions for a rational CIE, very few were able to execute the complex model update that the Bayesian model entails. In sum, we provide a novel illustration of the pervasive influence of misinformation as the consequence of a rational process.

False prophets and Cassandra's curse: The role of credibility in belief updating.

Information from other sources can be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the veracity of the report. Along with prior beliefs and context, recipients have two main routes to determine veracity; the perceived credibility of the source and direct-evaluation via first-hand evidence, i.e. testing the advice against observation. Using a probabilistic learning paradigm, we look at the interplay of these two factors in the uptake (or rejection) of communicated beliefs, and the subsequent evaluation of the credibility of the communicator in light of this process. Whether the communicated belief is false (Experiment 1), or true (Experiment 2), we show that beliefs are interpreted in light of the perceived credibility of the source, such that beliefs from high trust sources are taken up (hypothesis 1), whilst beliefs from low trust sources are treated with suspicion and potentially rejected - dependent on early evidence experiences (hypothesis 2). Finally, we show that these credibility-led biased interpretations of evidence (whether belief or suspicion confirming) lead to further polarization of the perceived credibility of communicators (hypothesis 3). Crucially, this occurs irrespective of the veracity of the communication, such that sources accompanied by a high trust cue not only get away with communicating falsehoods, but see their perceived credibility increase, whilst sources accompanied by low trust cues not only have truthful communications rejected, but have their low trust penalized even further. These findings carry important implications for the consequences of artificially inflating or deflating the credibility of communicators (e.g., politicians or scientists in public debate).

Influence and seepage: An evidence-resistant minority can affect public opinion and scientific belief formation.

Some well-established scientific findings may be rejected by vocal minorities because the evidence is in conflict with political views or economic interests. For example, the tobacco industry denied the medical consensus on the harms of smoking for decades, and the clear evidence about human-caused climate change is currently being rejected by many politicians and think tanks that oppose regulatory action. We present an agent-based model of the processes by which denial of climate change can occur, how opinions that run counter to the evidence can affect the scientific community, and how denial can alter the public discourse. The model involves an ensemble of Bayesian agents, representing the scientific community, that are presented with the emerging historical evidence of climate change and that also communicate the evidence to each other. Over time, the scientific community comes to agreement that the climate is changing. When a minority of agents is introduced that is resistant to the evidence, but that enter into the scientific discussion, the simulated scientific community still acquires firm knowledge but consensus formation is delayed. When both types of agents are communicating with the general public, the public remains ambivalent about the reality of climate change. The model captures essential aspects of the actual evolution of scientific and public opinion during the last 4 decades.

The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.

The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how people evaluate this argument, suggesting that such an approach might be beneficial to argumentation research generally. We subsequently present two experiments as an example of the potential for future research in this vein, demonstrating that participants' quantitative ratings of the convincingness of a proposition that has been supported with an appeal to expert opinion were broadly consistent with the predictions of the Bayesian model.

The anionic biosurfactant rhamnolipid does not denature industrial enzymes.

Biosurfactants (BS) are surface-active molecules produced by microorganisms. Their combination of useful properties and sustainable production make them promising industrial alternatives to petrochemical and oleochemical surfactants. Here we compare the impact of the anionic BS rhamnolipid (RL) and the conventional/synthetic anionic surfactant sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) on the structure and stability of three different commercially used enzymes, namely the cellulase Carezyme® (CZ), the phospholipase Lecitase Ultra® (LT) and the α-amylase Stainzyme® (SZ). Our data reveal a fundamental difference in their mode of interaction. SDS shows great diversity of interaction toward the different enzymes. It efficiently unfolds both LT and CZ, but LT is unfolded by SDS through formation of SDS clusters on the enzyme well below the cmc, while CZ is only unfolded by bulk micelles and on average binds significantly less SDS than LT. SDS binds with even lower stoichiometry to SZ and leads to an increase in thermal stability. In contrast, RL does not affect the tertiary or secondary structure of any enzyme at room temperature, has little impact on thermal stability and only binds detectably (but at low stoichiometries) to SZ. Furthermore, all enzymes maintain activity at both monomeric and micellar concentrations of RL. We conclude that RL, despite its anionic charge, is a surfactant that does not compromise the structural integrity of industrially relevant enzymes. This makes RL a promising alternative to current synthetic anionic surfactants in a wide range of commercial applications.

No difference between alfacalcidol and paricalcitol in the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients: a randomized crossover trial.

Alfacalcidol and paricalcitol are vitamin D analogs used for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease, but have known dose-dependent side effects that cause hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. In this investigator-initiated multicenter randomized clinical trial, we originally intended two crossover study periods with a washout interval in 86 chronic hemodialysis patients. These patients received increasing intravenous doses of either alfacalcidol or paricalcitol for 16 weeks, until parathyroid hormone was adequately suppressed or calcium or phosphate levels reached an upper threshold. Unfortunately, due to a period effect, only the initial 16-week intervention period for 80 patients was statistically analyzed. The proportion of patients achieving a 30% decrease in parathyroid hormone levels over the last four weeks of study was statistically indistinguishable between the two groups. Paricalcitol was more efficient at correcting low than high baseline parathyroid hormone levels, whereas alfacalcidol was equally effective at all levels. There were no differences in the incidence of hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia. Thus, alfacalcidol and paricalcitol were equally effective in the suppression of secondary hyperparathyroidism in hemodialysis patients while calcium and phosphorus were kept in the desired range.