I am right, you are wrong: how biased assimilation increases the perceived gap between believers and skeptics of violent video game effects

The Game Within the Game: The Potential Influence of Demand Characteristics and Participant Beliefs in Violent Video Game Studies

In two experiments, we examined the potential impact of demand characteristics in violent video game (VVG) research. Study 1 (N = 788) measured behavioral aggression, while Study 2 (N = 1,182) measured trait aggression. Participants were informed either that researchers wanted to confirm that VVGs increase aggression ("Positive Hypothesis") or that VVGs have no effect ("Null Hypothesis"). Study 2 included a third condition where participants were given no information. In both studies, the interaction between VVG exposure and experimental conditions was significant. Whereas VVG exposure was significantly positively associated with aggression in the "Null Hypothesis" condition, it was not in the "Positive Hypothesis" condition. These effects were driven by habitual players responding differently based on the presented hypothesis, appearing less aggressive in the "Positive Hypothesis" condition than in the other two conditions. These findings highlight the importance of addressing demand characteristics in VVG studies.

Self-serving beliefs about science: Science justifies my weaknesses (but not other people's)

This research explored the strategic beliefs that people have about science and the extent to which it can explain moral and immoral behaviors. Although people do not believe that science is able to explain certain aspects of their mind, they might nevertheless accept a scientific explanation for their immoral behaviors if that explanation is exculpatory. In a first study, participants reflected on moral and immoral deeds that they performed or that other people performed. Participants were somewhat skeptic that science can account for people's behavior-except for when they reflected on the wrongdoings that they committed. Two further studies suggest that strategic belief in science arises because it enables external attributions for the behavior, outside of the wrongdoers' control. Implications are discussed for science understanding and communication.

Confirmation bias and vaccine-related beliefs in the time of COVID-19

Background

In recent history mass vaccination has proved essential to dealing with pandemics. However, the effectiveness of a vaccine depends on the number of people willing to take it. One approach to encouraging uptake is to publish information about safety and effectiveness. But confirmation bias research in other domains suggests that people may evaluate this information through the lens of their existing beliefs.

Methods

This study used a simple 2 × 2 design to investigate whether people’s (n = 3899) existing beliefs influenced their ability to correctly evaluate data from a fictional trial presented in a frequency table. Treatment groups saw different trial outcomes (intervention effective versus ineffective and trial related versus unrelated to vaccines).

Results

Results provided robust evidence for confirmation bias in the domain of vaccines: people made systematic errors (P < 0.01) when evaluating evidence that was inconsistent with their prior beliefs. This pattern emerged among people with both pro-vaccination and anti-vaccination attitudes. Errors were attributed to confirmation bias because no such differences were detected when participants evaluated data unrelated to vaccines.

Conclusions

People are prone to misinterpreting evidence about vaccines in ways that reflect their underlying beliefs. Confirmation bias is an important consideration for vaccine communication.

Why do habitual violent video game players believe in the cathartic effects of violent video games? A misinterpretation of mood improvement as a reduction in aggressive feelings

Previous research found that violent video game play leads to increased aggression, but many people (mainly habitual violent video game players) still believe that playing violent games releases aggressive feelings and in turn reduces aggressive behavior. Other research has shown that video game play can have a positive impact on the player's mood. Based on the General Aggression Model and mood management theory, we thus hypothesized that habitual violent video game players misinterpret their better mood after game play as a reduction of aggressive feelings and hence believe in the cathartic effects of violent video games. Two studies examined this reasoning in the player's natural habitat. Habitual video game players were surveyed multiple times for a period of 2 weeks before and after each gaming session. Results showed that playing video games improved the participant's mood, which in turn was positively associated with the belief in the cathartic effect of violent video game play. Importantly, this relation held when controlling for the player's actual level of aggressive feelings. Study 1 further showed that playing a violent game tended to lead to a higher level of reported aggressive feelings after playing. In contrast, in Study 2, level of reported aggressive feelings was not related to the violence of the game. Taken together, habitual violent video game players (erroneously) believe in the cathartic effects of violent video games, because they are in a better mood after playing.

Moral conviction: A challenge in the age of science politicization

Social science research can help science practitioners understand why the public responds to scientific findings differentially-sometimes believing, sometimes not. Four decades of research finds that people interpret science in ways that make it easier to dismiss scientific findings or consensuses that go against specific attitudes, or positions in social and policy debates, that they wish to maintain. This may be the case especially when a person's position is a moral conviction-that is, it is not only their preferred position, but what they feel is the morally correct position. This chapter explores why moral conviction matters for understanding public response to scientific information in the age of politicization, where moral conviction comes from, and the ways in which it poses a challenge to the foundations of science.

When research is me-search: How researchers' motivation to pursue a topic affects laypeople's trust in science

Research is often fueled by researchers' scientific, but also their personal interests: Sometimes, researchers decide to pursue a specific research question because the answer to that question is idiosyncratically relevant for themselves: Such "me-search" may not only affect the quality of research, but also how it is perceived by the general public. In two studies (N = 621), we investigate the circumstances under which learning about a researcher's "me-search" increases or decreases laypeople's ascriptions of trustworthiness and credibility to the respective researcher. Results suggest that participants' own preexisting attitudes towards the research topic moderate the effects of "me-search" substantially: When participants hold favorable attitudes towards the research topic (i.e., LGBTQ or veganism), "me-searchers" were perceived as more trustworthy and their research was perceived as more credible. This pattern was reversed when participants held unfavorable attitudes towards the research topic. Study 2 furthermore shows that trustworthiness and credibility perceptions generalize to evaluations of the entire field of research. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

The Dark Side of Information Proliferation

There are well-understood psychological limits on our capacity to process information. As information proliferation-the consumption and sharing of information-increases through social media and other communications technology, these limits create an attentional bottleneck, favoring information that is more likely to be searched for, attended to, comprehended, encoded, and later reproduced. In information-rich environments, this bottleneck influences the evolution of information via four forces of cognitive selection, selecting for information that is belief-consistent, negative, social, and predictive. Selection for belief-consistent information leads balanced information to support increasingly polarized views. Selection for negative information amplifies information about downside risks and crowds out potential benefits. Selection for social information drives herding, impairs objective assessments, and reduces exploration for solutions to hard problems. Selection for predictive patterns drives overfitting, the replication crisis, and risk seeking. This article summarizes the negative implications of these forces of cognitive selection and presents eight warnings that represent severe pitfalls for the naive "informavore," accelerating extremism, hysteria, herding, and the proliferation of misinformation.

How Moral Threat Shapes Laypersons' Engagement With Science

Laypersons' engagement with science has grown over the last decade, especially in Internet environments. While this development has many benefits, scientists also face the challenge of devaluation and public criticism by laypersons. Embedding this phenomenon in social-psychological theories and research on value-behavior correspondence, we investigated moral threat as a factor influencing laypersons' engagement with science. Across three studies, we hypothesized and found that moral values shape the way laypersons evaluate and communicate about science when these values are threatened in a given situation and central to people's self-concept. However, prior research on the underlying mechanism of moral threat effects cannot fully rule out value salience as an alternative explanation. To close this gap, we situationally induced value salience while varying the degree of moral threat (Study 3). Our findings indicate that moral threat amplifies the influence of moral values on laypersons' evaluation of science above and beyond value salience.

The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence

The argumentative theory of reasoning suggests that the main function of reasoning is to exchange arguments with others. This theory explains key properties of reasoning. When reasoners produce arguments, they are biased and lazy, as can be expected if reasoning is a mechanism that aims at convincing others in interactive contexts. By contrast, reasoners are more objective and demanding when they evaluate arguments provided by others. This fundamental asymmetry between production and evaluation explains the effects of reasoning in different contexts: the more debate and conflict between opinions there is, the more argument evaluation prevails over argument production, resulting in better outcomes. Here I review how the argumentative theory of reasoning helps integrate a wide range of empirical findings in reasoning research.

Does Exonerating an Accused Researcher Restore the Researcher's Credibility?

Scientific misconduct appears to be on the rise. However, an accused researcher may later be exonerated. The present research examines to what extent participants adhere to their attitude toward a researcher who allegedly committed academic misconduct after learning that the researcher is innocent. In two studies, participants in an exoneration and an uncorrected accusation condition learned that the ethics committee of a researcher’s university demanded the retraction of one of the researcher’s articles, whereas participants in a control condition did not receive this information. As intended, this manipulation led to a more favorable attitude toward the researcher in the control compared to the exoneration and the uncorrected accusation conditions (pre-exoneration attitude). Then, participants in the exoneration condition learned that the researcher was exonerated and that the article was not retracted. Participants in the uncorrected accusation and the control condition were not informed about the exoneration. Results revealed that the exoneration effectively worked, in that participants in the exoneration condition had a more favorable attitude (post-exoneration attitude) toward the researcher than did participants in the uncorrected accusation condition. Moreover, the post-exoneration attitude toward the researcher was similar in the exoneration and the control conditions. Finally, in the exoneration condition only, participants’ post-exoneration attitude was more favorable than their pre-exoneration attitude. These findings suggest that an exoneration of an accused researcher restores the researcher’s credibility.

Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments

Experiencing social identity threat from scientific findings can lead people to cognitively devalue the respective findings. Three studies examined whether potentially threatening scientific findings motivate group members to take action against the respective findings by publicly discrediting them on the Web. Results show that strongly (vs. weakly) identified group members (i.e., people who identified as "gamers") were particularly likely to discredit social identity threatening findings publicly (i.e., studies that found an effect of playing violent video games on aggression). A content analytical evaluation of online comments revealed that social identification specifically predicted critiques of the methodology employed in potentially threatening, but not in non-threatening research (Study 2). Furthermore, when participants were collectively (vs. self-) affirmed, identification did no longer predict discrediting posting behavior (Study 3). These findings contribute to the understanding of the formation of online collective action and add to the burgeoning literature on the question why certain scientific findings sometimes face a broad public opposition.

Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments

Experiencing social identity threat from scientific findings can lead people to cognitively devalue the respective findings. Three studies examined whether potentially threatening scientific findings motivate group members to take action against the respective findings by publicly discrediting them on the Web. Results show that strongly (vs. weakly) identified group members (i.e., people who identified as "gamers") were particularly likely to discredit social identity threatening findings publicly (i.e., studies that found an effect of playing violent video games on aggression). A content analytical evaluation of online comments revealed that social identification specifically predicted critiques of the methodology employed in potentially threatening, but not in non-threatening research (Study 2). Furthermore, when participants were collectively (vs. self-) affirmed, identification did no longer predict discrediting posting behavior (Study 3). These findings contribute to the understanding of the formation of online collective action and add to the burgeoning literature on the question why certain scientific findings sometimes face a broad public opposition.

The role of tentative decisions and health concepts in assessing information about mammography screening

Breast cancer awareness campaigns and screening programs are important public health issues. In order to deepen women's knowledge about mammography screening, a balanced presentation of arguments is considered to be relevant. Yet, little is known about how women process this information and assess pro and contra arguments, which, in turn, can be embedded in different health paradigms. The aim of this experimental study was to determine the impact of both women's pre-formed, tentative decisions about whether to participate in mammography screening and of their individual health concepts on their assessment of different arguments about mammography screening. The results showed that women who would tend at the outset to participate in mammography screening rated information about advantages as more relevant than information about disadvantages--in contrast to women who did not intend to participate. In addition, the greater the fit was between women's individual health concepts and the health concept presented in the arguments, the more they considered the information presented to be relevant. We conclude that presenting balanced information about mammography screening does not guarantee balanced processing of that information. Health professionals need to be aware of people's prior beliefs and of the health paradigm in which information is embedded.