Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation.

The spread of misinformation through media and social networks threatens many aspects of society, including public health and the state of democracies. One approach to mitigating the effect of misinformation focuses on individual-level interventions, equipping policymakers and the public with essential tools to curb the spread and influence of falsehoods. Here we introduce a toolbox of individual-level interventions for reducing harm from online misinformation. Comprising an up-to-date account of interventions featured in 81 scientific papers from across the globe, the toolbox provides both a conceptual overview of nine main types of interventions, including their target, scope and examples, and a summary of the empirical evidence supporting the interventions, including the methods and experimental paradigms used to test them. The nine types of interventions covered are accuracy prompts, debunking and rebuttals, friction, inoculation, lateral reading and verification strategies, media-literacy tips, social norms, source-credibility labels, and warning and fact-checking labels.

The Online Misinformation Engagement Framework.

Research on online misinformation has evolved rapidly, but organizing its results and identifying open research questions is difficult without a systematic approach. We present the Online Misinformation Engagement Framework, which classifies people's engagement with online misinformation into four stages: selecting information sources, choosing what information to consume or ignore, evaluating the accuracy of the information and/or the credibility of the source, and judging whether and how to react to the information (e.g., liking or sharing). We outline entry points for interventions at each stage and pinpoint the two early stages-source and information selection-as relatively neglected processes that should be addressed to further improve people's ability to contend with misinformation.

Birth-order effects on risk taking are limited to the family environment.

Why is the empirical evidence for birth-order effects on human psychology so inconsistent? In contrast to the influential view that competitive dynamics among siblings permanently shape a person's personality, we find evidence that these effects are limited to the family environment. We tested this context-specific learning hypothesis in the domain of risk taking, using two large survey datasets from Germany (SOEP, n = 19,994) and the United States (NLSCYA, n = 29,627) to examine birth-order effects on risk-taking propensity across a wide age range. Specification-curve analyses of a sample of 49,621 observations showed that birth-order effects are prevalent in children aged 10-13 years, but that they decline with age and disappear by middle adulthood. The methodological approach shows the effect is robust. We thus replicate and extend previous work in which we showed no birth-order effects on adult risk taking. We conclude that family dynamics cause birth-order effects on risk taking but that these effects fade as siblings transition out of the home.

How cognitive selection affects language change.

Like biological species, words in language must compete to survive. Previously, it has been shown that language changes in response to cognitive constraints and over time becomes more learnable. Here, we use two complementary research paradigms to demonstrate how the survival of existing word forms can be predicted by psycholinguistic properties that impact language production. In the first study, we analyzed the survival of words in the context of interpersonal communication. We analyzed data from a large-scale serial-reproduction experiment in which stories were passed down along a transmission chain over multiple participants. The results show that words that are acquired earlier in life, more concrete, more arousing, and more emotional are more likely to survive retellings. We reason that the same trend might scale up to language evolution over multiple generations of natural language users. If that is the case, the same set of psycholinguistic properties should also account for the change of word frequency in natural language corpora over historical time. That is what we found in two large historical-language corpora (Study 2): Early acquisition, concreteness, and high arousal all predict increasing word frequency over the past 200 y. However, the two studies diverge with respect to the impact of word valence and word length, which we take up in the discussion. By bridging micro-level behavioral preferences and macro-level language patterns, our investigation sheds light on the cognitive mechanisms underlying word competition.

The link between cognitive abilities and risk preference depends on measurement.

Risk preference is an important construct for understanding individual differences in risk taking throughout the behavioral sciences. An active stream of research has focused on better understanding risk preference through its connection to other psychological constructs, in particular, cognitive abilities. Here, we examine two large-scale multimethod data sets and demonstrate that the method used to measure risk preference is an important moderator. In self-report measures, we found small but consistent positive correlations between working memory capacity/numeracy, facets of cognitive abilities, and risk tolerance. In behavioral measures, we found, on average, no correlation and large intermethod heterogeneity. This heterogeneity can be explained by the choice architecture that is created in behavioral methods-in particular, the relation between risk and reward and the impact of decision error in a task. Consequently, investigating how risk preference relates to psychological constructs such as cognitive abilities require a profound understanding of the choice architecture in measurements of risk preference and in the real world.

Cohort profile: Genetic data in the German Socio-Economic Panel Innovation Sample (SOEP-G).

The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) serves a global research community by providing representative annual longitudinal data of respondents living in private households in Germany. The dataset offers a valuable life course panorama, encompassing living conditions, socioeconomic status, familial connections, personality traits, values, preferences, health, and well-being. To amplify research opportunities further, we have extended the SOEP Innovation Sample (SOEP-IS) by collecting genetic data from 2,598 participants, yielding the first genotyped dataset for Germany based on a representative population sample (SOEP-G). The sample includes 107 full-sibling pairs, 501 parent-offspring pairs, and 152 triads, which overlap with the parent-offspring pairs. Leveraging the results from well-powered genome-wide association studies, we created a repository comprising 66 polygenic indices (PGIs) in the SOEP-G sample. We show that the PGIs for height, BMI, and educational attainment capture 22∼24%, 12∼13%, and 9% of the variance in the respective phenotypes. Using the PGIs for height and BMI, we demonstrate that the considerable increase in average height and the decrease in average BMI in more recent birth cohorts cannot be attributed to genetic shifts within the German population or to age effects alone. These findings suggest an important role of improved environmental conditions in driving these changes. Furthermore, we show that higher values in the PGIs for educational attainment and the highest math class are associated with better self-rated health, illustrating complex relationships between genetics, cognition, behavior, socio-economic status, and health. In summary, the SOEP-G data and the PGI repository we created provide a valuable resource for studying individual differences, inequalities, life-course development, health, and interactions between genetic predispositions and the environment.

Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens.

Low-quality and misleading information online can hijack people's attention, often by evoking curiosity, outrage, or anger. Resisting certain types of information and actors online requires people to adopt new mental habits that help them avoid being tempted by attention-grabbing and potentially harmful content. We argue that digital information literacy must include the competence of critical ignoring-choosing what to ignore and where to invest one's limited attentional capacities. We review three types of cognitive strategies for implementing critical ignoring: self-nudging, in which one ignores temptations by removing them from one's digital environments; lateral reading, in which one vets information by leaving the source and verifying its credibility elsewhere online; and the do-not-feed-the-trolls heuristic, which advises one to not reward malicious actors with attention. We argue that these strategies implementing critical ignoring should be part of school curricula on digital information literacy. Teaching the competence of critical ignoring requires a paradigm shift in educators' thinking, from a sole focus on the power and promise of paying close attention to an additional emphasis on the power of ignoring. Encouraging students and other online users to embrace critical ignoring can empower them to shield themselves from the excesses, traps, and information disorders of today's attention economy.

Environmental statistics and experience shape risk-taking across adolescence.

Adolescents are often portrayed as reckless risk-takers because of their immature brains. Recent research has cast doubt on this portrayal, identifying the environment as a moderator of risk-taking. However, the key features of environments that drive risk-taking behaviors are often underspecified. We call for greater attention to the environment by drawing on research showing that its statistical structure impacts future risk-taking as people learn from outcomes they experience after taking a risk. This opinion shows that adolescents are unlikely to experience harm from many risks because environmental statistics are skewed and favor safe experiences. Environmental statistics and experience suggest entry points for policy interventions by carefully timing risk warnings and leveraging peers' potential to shape the statistics of rewarding experiences.

Blinding to Circumvent Human Biases: Deliberate Ignorance in Humans, Institutions, and Machines.

Inequalities and injustices are thorny issues in liberal societies, manifesting in forms such as the gender-pay gap; sentencing discrepancies among Black, Hispanic, and White defendants; and unequal medical-resource distribution across ethnicities. One cause of these inequalities is implicit social bias-unconsciously formed associations between social groups and attributions such as "nurturing," "lazy," or "uneducated." One strategy to counteract implicit and explicit human biases is delegating crucial decisions, such as how to allocate benefits, resources, or opportunities, to algorithms. Algorithms, however, are not necessarily impartial and objective. Although they can detect and mitigate human biases, they can also perpetuate and even amplify existing inequalities and injustices. We explore how a philosophical thought experiment, Rawls's "veil of ignorance," and a psychological phenomenon, deliberate ignorance, can help shield individuals, institutions, and algorithms from biases. We discuss the benefits and drawbacks of methods for shielding human and artificial decision makers from potentially biasing information. We then broaden our discussion beyond the issues of bias and fairness and turn to a research agenda aimed at improving human judgment accuracy with the assistance of algorithms that conceal information that has the potential to undermine performance. Finally, we propose interdisciplinary research questions.

The real cause of our complicity: The preoccupation with human weakness.

Chater & Loewenstein offer an incisive criticism of how behavioral sciences and public policy have become complicit with corporations in blaming public health and societal problems on individual weaknesses, thus deflecting support away from systemic reforms. However, their analysis stops short of holding the field to account in one important respect: its preoccupation with human irrationality and weakness.

Measuring Cognitive Abilities in the Wild: Validating a Population-Scale Game-Based Cognitive Assessment.

Rapid individual cognitive phenotyping holds the potential to revolutionize domains as wide-ranging as personalized learning, employment practices, and precision psychiatry. Going beyond limitations imposed by traditional lab-based experiments, new efforts have been underway toward greater ecological validity and participant diversity to capture the full range of individual differences in cognitive abilities and behaviors across the general population. Building on this, we developed Skill Lab, a novel game-based tool that simultaneously assesses a broad suite of cognitive abilities while providing an engaging narrative. Skill Lab consists of six mini-games as well as 14 established cognitive ability tasks. Using a popular citizen science platform (N = 10,725), we conducted a comprehensive validation in the wild of a game-based cognitive assessment suite. Based on the game and validation task data, we constructed reliable models to simultaneously predict eight cognitive abilities based on the users' in-game behavior. Follow-up validation tests revealed that the models can discriminate nuances contained within each separate cognitive ability as well as capture a shared main factor of generalized cognitive ability. Our game-based measures are five times faster to complete than the equivalent task-based measures and replicate previous findings on the decline of certain cognitive abilities with age in our large cross-sectional population sample (N = 6369). Taken together, our results demonstrate the feasibility of rapid in-the-wild systematic assessment of cognitive abilities as a promising first step toward population-scale benchmarking and individualized mental health diagnostics.

Heterogeneity of rules in Bayesian reasoning: A toolbox analysis.

How do people infer the Bayesian posterior probability from stated base rate, hit rate, and false alarm rate? This question is not only of theoretical relevance but also of practical relevance in medical and legal settings. We test two competing theoretical views: single-process theories versus toolbox theories. Single-process theories assume that a single process explains people's inferences and have indeed been observed to fit people's inferences well. Examples are Bayes's rule, the representativeness heuristic, and a weighing-and-adding model. Their assumed process homogeneity implies unimodal response distributions. Toolbox theories, in contrast, assume process heterogeneity, implying multimodal response distributions. After analyzing response distributions in studies with laypeople and professionals, we find little support for the single-process theories tested. Using simulations, we find that a single process, the weighing-and-adding model, nevertheless can best fit the aggregate data and, surprisingly, also achieve the best out-of-sample prediction even though it fails to predict any single respondent's inferences. To identify the potential toolbox of rules, we test how well candidate rules predict a set of over 10,000 inferences (culled from the literature) from 4,188 participants and 106 different Bayesian tasks. A toolbox of five non-Bayesian rules plus Bayes's rule captures 64% of inferences. Finally, we validate the Five-Plus toolbox in three experiments that measure response times, self-reports, and strategy use. The most important conclusion from these analyses is that the fitting of single-process theories to aggregate data risks misidentifying the cognitive process. Antidotes to that risk are careful analyses of process and rule heterogeneity across people.

Effect of Longer Family Meals on Children's Fruit and Vegetable Intake: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Family meals are a formative learning environment that shapes children's food choices and preferences. As such, they are an ideal setting for efforts to improve children's nutritional health. Objective: To examine the effect of extending the duration of family meals on the fruit and vegetable intake in children. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial used a within-dyad manipulation design and was conducted from November 8, 2016, to May 5, 2017, in a family meal laboratory in Berlin, Germany. Included in the trial were children aged 6 to 11 years who did not follow a special diet or have food allergies and adult parents who served as the nutritional gatekeeper in the household (ie, the family member responsible for at least half of the food planning and preparation). All participants underwent 2 conditions: control, defined as regular family mealtime duration, and intervention, defined as 50% longer mealtime duration (10 minutes longer on average). Participants were randomized to the condition they would complete first. Statistical analyses of the full sample were conducted between June 2 and October 30, 2022. Interventions: Participants had 2 free evening meals under different conditions. In the control or regular condition, each dyad ate in the same amount of time as their reported regular mealtime duration. In the intervention or longer condition, each dyad had 50% more time to eat than their reported regular mealtime duration. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of pieces of fruits and vegetables eaten by the child during a meal. Results: A total of 50 parent-child dyads participated in the trial. Parents had a mean (range) age of 43 (28-55 years) years and were predominantly mothers (36 [72%]). Children had a mean (range) age of 8 (6-11) years and included an equal number of girls and boys (25 [50%]). Children ate significantly more pieces of fruits (t49 = 2.36, P = .01; mean difference [MD], 3.32 [95% CI, 0.96 to ∞]; Cohen d = 0.33) and vegetables (t49 = 3.66, P < .001; MD, 4.05 [95% CI, 2.19 to ∞]; Cohen d = 0.52) in the longer condition than in the regular mealtime duration condition. Consumption of bread and cold cuts did not significantly differ between conditions. The children's eating rate (bites per minute over the regular mealtime duration) was significantly lower in the longer than in the regular condition (t49 = -7.60, P < .001; MD, -0.72 [95% CI, -0.56 to ∞]; Cohen d = 1.08). Children reported significantly higher satiety after the longer condition (V = 36.5, P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this randomized clinical trial suggest that the simple, low-threshold intervention of increasing family mealtime duration by approximately 10 minutes can improve the quality of children's diet and eating behavior. The findings underscore the potential for such an intervention to improve public health. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03127579.

Vaccination Intention Following Receipt of Vaccine Information Through Interactive Simulation vs Text Among COVID-19 Vaccine-Hesitant Adults During the Omicron Wave in Germany.

Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, vaccine-hesitant adults presented with an interactive risk ratio simulation were more likely to show positive change in COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment than those presented with a conventional text-based information format. These findings suggest that the interactive risk communication format can be an important tool in addressing vaccination hesitancy and fostering public trust. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study conducted online with 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adult residents of Germany in April and May 2022, surveyed using a probability-based internet panel maintained by respondi, a research and analytics firm. Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 presentations on the benefits and adverse events associated with vaccination. Exposure: Participants were randomized to a text-based description vs an interactive simulation presenting age-adjusted absolute risks of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission, and death after exposure to coronavirus in vaccinated vs unvaccinated individuals relative to the possible adverse effects as well as additional (population-level) benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Importance: Hesitancy toward COVID-19 vaccination is a major factor in stagnating uptake rates and in the risk of health care systems becoming overwhelmed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Absolute change in respondents' COVID-19 vaccination intention category and benefit-to-harm assessment category. Objective: To compare an interactive risk ratio simulation (intervention) with a conventional text-based risk information format (control) and analyze change in participants' COVID-19 vaccination intention and benefit-to-harm assessment. Results: Participants were 1255 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant residents of Germany (660 women [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 43.6 [13.5] years). A total of 651 participants received a text-based description, and 604 participants received an interactive simulation. Relative to the text-based format, the simulation was associated with greater likelihood of positive change in vaccination intentions (19.5% vs 15.3%, respectively; absolute difference, 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.45; 95% CI, 1.07-1.96; P = .01) and benefit-to-harm assessments (32.6% vs 18.0%; absolute difference, 14.6%; aOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.64-2.80; P < .001). Both formats were also associated with some negative change. However, the net advantage (positive - negative change) of the interactive simulation over the text-based format was 5.3 percentage points for vaccination intention (9.8% vs 4.5%) and 18.3 percentage points for benefit-to-harm assessment (25.3% vs 7.0%). Positive change in vaccination intention (but not in benefit-to-harm assessment) was associated with some demographic characteristics and attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination; negative changes were not.

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.

Chimpanzee and Human Risk Preferences Show Key Similarities.

Risk preference impacts how people make key life decisions related to health, wealth, and well-being. Systematic variations in risk-taking behavior can be the result of differences in fitness expectations, as predicted by life-history theory. Yet the evolutionary roots of human risk-taking behavior remain poorly understood. Here, we studied risk preferences of chimpanzees (86 Pan troglodytes; 47 females; age = 2-40 years) using a multimethod approach that combined observer ratings with behavioral choice experiments. We found that chimpanzees' willingness to take risks shared structural similarities with that of humans. First, chimpanzees' risk preference manifested as a traitlike preference that was consistent across domains and measurements. Second, chimpanzees were ambiguity averse. Third, males were more risk prone than females. Fourth, the appetite for risk showed an inverted-U-shaped relation to age and peaked in young adulthood. Our findings suggest that key dimensions of risk preference appear to emerge independently of the influence of human cultural evolution.

Variance, skewness and multiple outcomes in described and experienced prospects: Can one descriptive model capture it all?

We determined the scope of five decision models of choices across four environmental niches defined by whether outcome probabilities are described (risk) or experienced by sampling (uncertainty) and whether lotteries are simple (one or two outcomes per prospect) or complex (three or four). The majority of participants chose in accordance with cumulative prospect theory only in simple environments involving decisions from description (75%). In complex environments involving decisions from description and experience, however, skewness-preference models were more prevalent (57% and 68%, respectively). Consequently, in niches outside of simple lotteries under risk, rank dependence and nonlinear probability weighting failed to accurately describe the majority of choices. Exploiting elicited subjective beliefs in decisions from experience, we found that experienced (sampled) outcome likelihoods outperformed elicited beliefs in predicting choices and found scant evidence for two-stage models of decisions under uncertainty. Finally, we found statistically significant evidence that 90% of participants chose as if they relied on different models across environments; nonetheless, assuming as if participants used a single model across all environments to predict out-of-sample choice only minimally reduced prediction accuracy. We discuss the implications of model mimicry and task diagnosticity in light of these results in terms of both economic and statistical significance, both for model comparisons and inference. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy.

One of today's most controversial and consequential issues is whether the global uptake of digital media is causally related to a decline in democracy. We conducted a systematic review of causal and correlational evidence (N = 496 articles) on the link between digital media use and different political variables. Some associations, such as increasing political participation and information consumption, are likely to be beneficial for democracy and were often observed in autocracies and emerging democracies. Other associations, such as declining political trust, increasing populism and growing polarization, are likely to be detrimental to democracy and were more pronounced in established democracies. While the impact of digital media on political systems depends on the specific variable and system in question, several variables show clear directions of associations. The evidence calls for research efforts and vigilance by governments and civil societies to better understand, design and regulate the interplay of digital media and democracy.

The impact of nontransparent health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccine-hesitant people's perception of vaccines.

Background: Although transparency is crucial for building public trust, public health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic was often nontransparent. Methods: In a cross-sectional online study with COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant German residents (N = 763), we explored the impact of COVID-19 public health communication on the attitudes of vaccine-hesitant individuals toward vaccines as well as their perceptions of incomprehensible and incomplete information. We also investigated whether specific formats of public health messaging were perceived as more trustworthy. Results: Of the 763 participants, 90 (11.8%) said they had become more open-minded toward vaccines in general, 408 (53.5%) reported no change, and 265 (34.7%) said they had become more skeptical as a result of public health communication on COVID-19 vaccines. These subgroups differed in how incomprehensible they found public health communication and whether they thought information had been missing. Participants' ranking of trustworthy public health messaging did not provide clear-cut results: the fully transparent message, which reported the benefit and harms in terms of absolute risk, and the nontransparent message, which reported only the benefit in terms of relative risk were both considered equally trustworthy (p = 0.848). Discussion: Increased skepticism about vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic may have partly been fueled by subpar public health communication. Given the importance of public trust for coping with future health crises, public health communicators should ensure that their messaging is clear and transparent.