Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation.

In online content moderation, two key values may come into conflict: protecting freedom of expression and preventing harm. Robust rules based in part on how citizens think about these moral dilemmas are necessary to deal with this conflict in a principled way, yet little is known about people's judgments and preferences around content moderation. We examined such moral dilemmas in a conjoint survey experiment where US respondents (N = 2, 564) indicated whether they would remove problematic social media posts on election denial, antivaccination, Holocaust denial, and climate change denial and whether they would take punitive action against the accounts. Respondents were shown key information about the user and their post as well as the consequences of the misinformation. The majority preferred quashing harmful misinformation over protecting free speech. Respondents were more reluctant to suspend accounts than to remove posts and more likely to do either if the harmful consequences of the misinformation were severe or if sharing it was a repeated offense. Features related to the account itself (the person behind the account, their partisanship, and number of followers) had little to no effect on respondents' decisions. Content moderation of harmful misinformation was a partisan issue: Across all four scenarios, Republicans were consistently less willing than Democrats or independents to remove posts or penalize the accounts that posted them. Our results can inform the design of transparent rules for content moderation of harmful misinformation.

Testing Psychological Inoculation to Reduce Reactance to Vaccine-Related Communication.

Research has found that vaccine-promoting messages can elicit state reactance (i.e., negative emotions in response to a perceived threat to behavioral freedom), especially among individuals with high trait reactance (i.e., proneness to experiencing reactance). This can result in a lower willingness to accept vaccines. We investigated whether inoculation against reactance - that is, forewarning individuals about potentially experiencing reactance - can reduce the effects of trait reactance on vaccination willingness. Participants (N = 710) recruited through Facebook were randomly allocated to be either inoculated or not. They were then shown a message promoting a fictitious vaccine, which included either a low, medium, or high threat to freedom. Contrary to research on other health topics, inoculation was ineffective at reducing state reactance toward the vaccination message. Inoculation also did not mitigate the effects of trait reactance on vaccination willingness, and was even counterproductive in some cases. High-reactant individuals were less willing to get vaccinated than low-reactant ones, especially at high freedom threat. Conversely, high freedom threat resulted in increased vaccination willingness among low-reactant individuals. Further research is needed to understand why inoculation against reactance produces different results with vaccination, and to develop communication strategies that mitigate reactance to vaccination campaigns without compromising the positive effects of vaccine recommendations for low-reactant individuals.

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Spillover effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on attitudes to influenza and childhood vaccines.

The current study sought to determine whether public perceptions of other vaccines and diseases than COVID-19 have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We longitudinally examined whether there had been a change from before the COVID-19 pandemic to during the pandemic in: (a) influenza vaccination behaviour and intentions; (b) the perceived benefit of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (c) the perceived safety of childhood vaccines and influenza vaccines; (d) the perceived severity of measles and influenza; and (e) trust in healthcare professionals in two samples of Finnish adults (N = 205 in Study 1 and N = 197 in Study 2). The findings showed that during the pandemic, more people than before had received or wanted to receive the influenza vaccine. The respondents also believed that influenza was more dangerous during the pandemic and that vaccinations were safer and more beneficial. On the other hand, for childhood vaccines only perceived safety increased. Finally, in one of the studies, people had more confidence in medical professionals during the pandemic than they had before. Together, these findings imply a spillover of the COVID-19 pandemic on how people view other vaccines and illnesses.

Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation.

Effective science communication is challenging when scientific messages are informed by a continually updating evidence base and must often compete against misinformation. We argue that we need a new program of science communication as collective intelligence-a collaborative approach, supported by technology. This would have four key advantages over the typical model where scientists communicate as individuals: scientific messages would be informed by (a) a wider base of aggregated knowledge, (b) contributions from a diverse scientific community, (c) participatory input from stakeholders, and (d) better responsiveness to ongoing changes in the state of knowledge.

Incorporating Psychological Science Into Policy Making: The Case of Misinformation.

The spread of false and misleading information in online social networks is a global problem in need of urgent solutions. It is also a policy problem because misinformation can harm both the public and democracies. To address the spread of misinformation, policymakers require a successful interface between science and policy, as well as a range of evidence-based solutions that respect fundamental rights while efficiently mitigating the harms of misinformation online. In this article, we discuss how regulatory and nonregulatory instruments can be informed by scientific research and used to reach EU policy objectives. First, we consider what it means to approach misinformation as a policy problem. We then outline four building blocks for cooperation between scientists and policymakers who wish to address the problem of misinformation: understanding the misinformation problem, understanding the psychological drivers and public perceptions of misinformation, finding evidence-based solutions, and co-developing appropriate policy measures. Finally, through the lens of psychological science, we examine policy instruments that have been proposed in the EU, focusing on the strengthened Code of Practice on Disinformation 2022.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Reviewing the relationship between neoliberal societies and nature: implications of the industrialized dominant social paradigm for a sustainable future.

How a society relates to nature is shaped by the dominant social paradigm (DSP): a society's collective view on social, economic, political, and environmental issues. The characteristics of the DSP have important consequences for natural systems and their conservation. Based on a synthesis of academic literature, we provide a new gradient of 12 types of human-nature relationships synthesized from scientific literature, and an analysis of where the DSP of industrialized, and more specifically, neoliberal societies fit on that gradient. We aim to answer how the industrialized DSP relates to nature, i.e., what types of human-nature relationships this DSP incorporates, and what the consequences of these relationships are for nature conservation and a sustainable future. The gradient of human-nature relationships is based on three defining characteristics: (1) a nature-culture divide, (2) core values, and (3) being anthropocentric or ecocentric. We argue that the industrialized DSP includes elements of the anthropocentric relationships of mastery, utilization, detachment, and stewardship. It therefore regards nature and culture as separate, is mainly driven by instrumental values, and drives detachment from and commodification of nature. Consequently, most green initiatives and policies driven by an industrialized and neoliberal DSP are based on economic incentives and economic growth, without recognition of the needs and limits of natural systems. This leads to environmental degradation and social inequality, obstructing the path to a truly sustainable society. To reach a more ecocentric DSP, systemic changes, in addition to individual changes, in the political and economic structures of the industrialized DSP are needed, along with a change in values and approach toward nature, long-term sustainability, and conservation.

Believing in nothing and believing in everything: The underlying cognitive paradox of anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitudes.

A major reason why some people oppose the COVID-19 vaccine is the influence of misinformation. This study suggests that the cognitive paradox of simultaneously believing known facts less and new, "alternative facts" more is the outcome of a distrust mindset, characterized by spontaneous consideration of alternatives, including misinformation. We captured this paradox and its correlates in a scale that measures individuals' ability to distinguish between the truth value of well-established facts ("Earth rotates eastward around its own axis, completing a full rotation once in about 24 h") and baseless "alternative facts" ("Earth can change its rotation direction and flip its axis, and we will never notice it"). Assuming that an anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitude arises from a chronically distrusting mindset, we sampled participants on Prolific who were pre-screened for their COVID-19 vaccine attitude based on earlier responses. We found that people who rejected COVID-19 vaccines believed well-established facts less, and "alternative facts" more, compared to supporters of the vaccine. Less discernment between truths and falsehoods was correlated with less intellectual humility, more distrust and greater reliance on one's intuition. This observed thought pattern offers insights into theoretical understanding of the antecedents of belief in "alternative facts" and conspiracy theories.

The behavioral immune system and vaccination intentions during the coronavirus pandemic.

The behavioral immune system is considered to be a psychological adaptation that decreases the risk of infection. Research suggests that, in the current environment, this system can produce attitudes with negative health consequences, such as increased vaccine hesitancy. In three studies, we investigated whether two facets of the behavioral immune system-germ aversion (i.e., aversion to potential pathogen transmission) and perceived infectability (i.e., perceived susceptibility to disease)-predicted intentions to accept COVID-19 and influenza vaccination during the pandemic. The behavioral immune system mechanisms were measured before the COVID-19 pandemic in one study, and during the pandemic in two. In contrast to previous research, those with higher germ aversion during the pandemic perceived vaccines to be safer and had higher intentions to accept vaccination. Germ aversion before the pandemic was not associated with vaccination intentions. Individuals who perceived themselves as more susceptible to disease were slightly more willing to accept vaccination. We conjecture that high disease threat reverses the relationship between the behavioral immune system response and vaccination. As the associations were weak, individual differences in germ aversion and perceived infectability are of little practical relevance for vaccine uptake.

When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation.

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

Information overload for (bounded) rational agents.

Bayesian inference offers an optimal means of processing environmental information and so an advantage in natural selection. We consider the apparent, recent trend in increasing dysfunctional disagreement in, for example, political debate. This is puzzling because Bayesian inference benefits from powerful convergence theorems, precluding dysfunctional disagreement. Information overload is a plausible factor limiting the applicability of full Bayesian inference, but what is the link with dysfunctional disagreement? Individuals striving to be Bayesian-rational, but challenged by information overload, might simplify by using Bayesian networks or the separation of questions into knowledge partitions, the latter formalized with quantum probability theory. We demonstrate the massive simplification afforded by either approach, but also show how they contribute to dysfunctional disagreement.

Climate Change Disinformation and How to Combat It.

Climate change presents a challenge at multiple levels: It challenges our cognitive abilities because the effect of the accumulation of emissions is difficult to understand. Climate change also challenges many people's worldview because any climate mitigation regime will have economic and political implications that are incompatible with libertarian ideals of unregulated free markets. These political implications have created an environment of rhetorical adversity in which disinformation abounds, thus compounding the challenges for climate communicators. The existing literature on how to communicate climate change and dispel misinformation converges on several conclusions: First, providing information about climate change, in particular explanations of why it occurs, can enhance people's acceptance of science. Second, highlighting the scientific consensus can be an effective means to counter misinformation and raise public acceptance. Third, culturally aligned messages and messengers are more likely to be successful. Finally, climate misinformation is best defanged, through a process known as inoculation, before it is encountered, although debunking techniques can also be successful.

Climate communication for biologists: When a picture can tell a thousand words.

Pictures often tell a story better than the proverbial 1,000 words. However, in connection with climate change, many pictures can be highly misleading, for example, when a snowball is used to ridicule the notion of global warming or when a picture of a dead crop is supposed to alert people to climate change. We differentiate between such inappropriate pictures and those that can be used legitimately because they capture long-term trends. For example, photos of a glacier's retreat are legitimate indicators of the long-term mass balance loss that is observed for the vast majority of glaciers around the world.

Unwillingness to engage in behaviors that protect against COVID-19: the role of conspiracy beliefs, trust, and endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine.

BACKGROUND: We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.

Fearing the disease or the vaccine: The case of COVID-19.

As studies indicate that people perceive COVID-19 as a threatening disease, the demand for a vaccine against the disease could be expected to be high. Vaccine safety concerns might nevertheless outweigh the perceived disease risks when an individual decides whether or not to accept the vaccine. We investigated the role of perceived risk of COVID-19 (i.e., perceived likelihood of infection, perceived disease severity, and disease-related worry) and perceived safety of a prospective vaccine against COVID-19 in predicting intentions to accept a COVID-19 vaccine. Three Finnish samples were surveyed: 825 parents of small children, 205 individuals living in an area with suboptimal vaccination coverage, and 1325 Facebook users nationwide. As points of reference, we compared the perceptions of COVID-19 to those of influenza and measles. COVID-19 was perceived as a threatening disease-more so than influenza and measles. The strongest predictor of COVID-19 vaccination intentions was trusting the safety of the potential vaccine. Those perceiving COVID-19 as a severe disease were also slightly more intent on taking a COVID-19 vaccine. Informing the public about the safety of a forthcoming COVID-19 vaccine should be the focus for health authorities aiming to achieve a high vaccine uptake.

Correction to: Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus.

Confidence intervals and regression lines were omitted from Fig. 1 in this article as originally published. This error was introduced during production. The original article has been corrected.

Keeping track of 'alternative facts': The neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections.

Upon receiving a correction, initially presented misinformation often continues to influence people's judgment and reasoning. Whereas some researchers believe that this so-called continued influence effect of misinformation (CIEM) simply arises from the insufficient encoding and integration of corrective claims, others assume that it arises from a competition between the correct information and the initial misinformation in memory. To examine these possibilities, we conducted two functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies. In each study, participants were asked to (a) read a series of brief news reports that contained confirmations or corrections of prior information and (b) evaluate whether subsequently presented memory probes matched the reports' correct facts rather than the initial misinformation. Both studies revealed that following correction-containing news reports, participants struggled to refute mismatching memory probes, especially when they referred to initial misinformation (as opposed to mismatching probes with novel information). We found little evidence, however, that the encoding of confirmations and corrections produced systematic neural processing differences indicative of distinct encoding strategies. Instead, we discovered that following corrections, participants exhibited increased activity in the left angular gyrus and the bilateral precuneus in response to mismatching memory probes that contained prior misinformation, compared to novel mismatch probes. These findings favour the notion that people's susceptibility to the CIEM arises from the concurrent retention of both correct and incorrect information in memory.