Loss aversion, the endowment effect, and gain-loss framing shape preferences for noninstrumental information.

We often talk about interacting with information as we would with a physical good (e.g., "consuming content") and describe our attachment to personal beliefs in the same way as our attachment to personal belongings (e.g., "holding on to" or "letting go of" our beliefs). But do we in fact value information the way we do objects? The valuation of money and material goods has been extensively researched, but surprisingly few insights from this literature have been applied to the study of information valuation. This paper demonstrates that two fundamental features of how we value money and material goods embodied in Prospect Theory-loss aversion and different risk preferences for gains versus losses-also hold true for information, even when it has no material value. Study 1 establishes loss aversion for noninstrumental information by showing that people are less likely to choose a gamble when the same outcome is framed as a loss (rather than gain) of information. Study 2 shows that people exhibit the endowment effect for noninstrumental information, and so value information more, simply by virtue of "owning" it. Study 3 provides a conceptual replication of the classic "Asian Disease" gain-loss pattern of risk preferences, but with facts instead of human lives, thereby also documenting a gain-loss framing effect for noninstrumental information. These findings represent a critical step in building a theoretical analogy between information and objects, and provide a useful perspective on why we often resist changing (or losing) our beliefs.

Curiosity is more than novelty seeking.

The novelty-seeking model (NSM) does not offer a compelling unifying framework for understanding creativity and curiosity. It fails to explain important manifestations and features of curiosity. Moreover, the arguments offered to support a curiosity-creativity link - a shared association with a common core process and various superficial associations between them - are neither convincing nor do they yield useful predictions.

Using curiosity to counter health information avoidance.

OBJECTIVE: Information that is beneficial for health decision-making is often ignored or actively avoided. Countering information avoidance can increase knowledge of disease risk factors and symptoms, aiding early diagnoses and reducing disease transmission. We examine whether curiosity can be a useful tool in increasing demand for, and engagement with, potentially aversive but useful health information. METHODS: Four pre-registered randomized online studies were conducted with 5795 participants recruited from online survey platforms. Curiosity for aversive health information was manipulated by providing a 'curiosity incentive' - identity-related information alongside aversive information - (Study 1), obscuring information (Studies 2 and 3), and eliciting guesses about the information (Studies 2 and 4). Willingness to view four types of aversive health information was elicited: alcohol consumption screening scores (Study 1), colon cancer risk scores (Study 2), cancer risk factors (Study 3), and the sugar content of drinks (Study 4). RESULTS: In Study 1, the curiosity manipulation increased the likelihood that participants viewed information about the riskiness of their drinking. Studies 2 and 3 show that curiosity prompts can counter people's reluctance to learn about and assess their cancer risk. And Study 4 shows that using curiosity prompts to encourage engagement with aversive information (sugar content of drinks) also improves health-related choices (opting for a sugar-free drink alternative). CONCLUSION: Curiosity prompts provide an effective and simple way to increase engagement with aversive health information.

Crowdsourcing interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines.

Background: COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions. Methods: We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts (n = 78 from 17 countries) proposed 46 unique interventions. To reduce noise and potential bias, in the second phase (January 2022), experts (n = 307 from 34 countries) and representative general population samples from the UK (n = 299) and the US (n = 300) rated the proposed interventions on several evaluation criteria, including effectiveness and acceptability, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Findings: Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams. Interpretation: The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies. Funding: This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.

(Mis)perception of bias in print media: How depth of content evaluation affects the perception of hostile bias in an objective news report.

The hostile media effect describes the tendency for partisans to evaluate media content as relatively biased against their positions. The present study investigates what specific contextual elements of a news report contribute to this effect and how it may be mitigated by the depth of content evaluation. A online study of 102 participants revealed that less bias is perceived in a newspaper article when evaluating specific aspects of the article with the text available for reference than when evaluating the overall bias without referring to the text. Moreover, being asked to consider overall article bias increased subsequent ratings of bias in the discrete elements of the text. These results suggest that the perception of media bias may be counteracted by encouraging deep, evidence-based considerations of where the alleged bias might lie, but only if this happens before the reader has the chance to form an opinion based on a cursory assessment.