Self-certification: A novel method for increasing sharing discernment on social media.

The proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms has given rise to growing demands for effective intervention strategies that increase sharing discernment (i.e. increase the difference in the probability of sharing true posts relative to the probability of sharing false posts). One suggested method is to encourage users to deliberate on the veracity of the information prior to sharing. However, this strategy is undermined by individuals' propensity to share posts they acknowledge as false. In our study, across three experiments, in a simulated social media environment, participants were shown social media posts and asked whether they wished to share them and, sometimes, whether they believed the posts to be truthful. We observe that requiring users to verify their belief in a news post's truthfulness before sharing it markedly curtails the dissemination of false information. Thus, requiring self-certification increased sharing discernment. Importantly, requiring self-certification didn't hinder users from sharing content they genuinely believed to be true because participants were allowed to share any posts that they indicated were true. We propose self-certification as a method that substantially curbs the spread of misleading content on social media without infringing upon the principle of free speech.

What do our sampling assumptions affect: How we encode data or how we reason from it?

In describing how people generalize from observed samples of data to novel cases, theories of inductive inference have emphasized the learner's reliance on the contents of the sample. More recently, a growing body of literature suggests that different assumptions about how a data sample was generated can lead the learner to draw qualitatively distinct inferences on the basis of the same observations. Yet, relatively little is known about how and when these two sources of evidence are combined. Do sampling assumptions affect how the sample contents are encoded, or is any influence exerted only at the point of retrieval when a decision is to be made? We report two experiments aimed at exploring this issue. By systematically varying both the sampling cover story and whether it is given before or after the training stimuli we are able to determine whether encoding or retrieval issues drive the impact of sampling assumptions. We find that the sampling cover story affects generalization when it is presented before the training stimuli, but not after, which suggests that sampling assumptions are integrated during encoding. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Leaping to Conclusions: Why Premise Relevance Affects Argument Strength.

Everyday reasoning requires more evidence than raw data alone can provide. We explore the idea that people can go beyond this data by reasoning about how the data was sampled. This idea is investigated through an examination of premise non-monotonicity, in which adding premises to a category-based argument weakens rather than strengthens it. Relevance theories explain this phenomenon in terms of people's sensitivity to the relationships among premise items. We show that a Bayesian model of category-based induction taking premise sampling assumptions and category similarity into account complements such theories and yields two important predictions: First, that sensitivity to premise relationships can be violated by inducing a weak sampling assumption; and second, that premise monotonicity should be restored as a result. We test these predictions with an experiment that manipulates people's assumptions in this regard, showing that people draw qualitatively different conclusions in each case.