Reed Orchinik

Normalizing lies...👇

Repeated exposure effect on moral condemnation of fake news www.nature.com/articles/s41... @dgrand.bsky.social

"...frequently seen headlines receive lower moral condemnation"

"Without this condemnation, the publication & spreading of online misinformation may be more common."

🚨New WP🚨
Using GPT4 to persuade participants significantly reduces climate skepticism and inaction
-Sig more effective than consensus messaging
-Works for Republicans
-Evidence of persistence @ 1mo
-Scalable!
PDF: osf.io/preprints/ps...
Try the bot: www.debunkbot.com/climate-change
Here’s how 👇

Do you have strong programming skills but need research experience doing meaningful & exciting CSS projects before head off to a top graduate school for a computational social science PhD? Apply now to predoc www.microsoft.com/en-us/resear... with me, @dggoldst.bsky.social & @jakehofman.bsky.social

New Bright Line Watch report brightlinewatch.org/accelerated-...

-Expert ratings of US democracy at post-2016 low
-55% of Trump-aligned Rs approve of "strong leader who does not have to bother w/Congress"
-Jan 6 pardons, exec branch firings, Musk influence rated as grave threats

🧵 of results below

Title Authors Abstract (Decision under Risk are Decisions Under Complexity: Comment)

A new working paper with Daniel Banki, @urisohn.bsky.social and Robert Walatka, just submitted to SSRN.

The paper is comment on Ryan Oprea's recent AER paper.

The paper is processing, but you, my friends, get early entry.

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Here it is: osf.io/preprints/ps.... Thanks for reading

CamererFest got off to a great start with a thrilling poster session from generations of @cfcamerer.bsky.social academic descendants #cfcfc 1/10

@rorchinik.bsky.social fit three fascinating papers on adaptation to environments with varying levels of misinformation on one poster. If the QR codes don't work, go to his website: www.reedorchinik.com/research @rbhui.bsky.social @dgrand.bsky.social @cameronmartel.bsky.social #cfcfc 4/10

Thanks so much! I really appreciate it. I'll follow up over email

Thanks, Olivier! Looking forward to any further feedback & thanks for the papers.

I really like the clickbait paper - will definitely engage with it in our paper! The 2nd was 1 of the papers that got me to start thinking about Bayesian explanations. I’ve really appreciated your work in the area.

@dgrand.bsky.social @rbhui.bsky.social

Thanks for reading! Comments very much welcome.

As always, huge thanks to my awesome coauthors and advisors @DG_Rand & @RaBhui

Link to paper: osf.io/preprints/ps...
14/14

So what? Ppl’s beliefs may not be as fallible as we think. Ppl efficiently use info & can limit the harm of “biases” to avoid falling for misinfo, propaganda, & political persuasion (see thread).

Another thread from the old site: x.com/ROrchinik/st... 13/

The illusory truth effect appears to be an adaptation to high-quality info sources. With a high-quality source, the standard illusory truth effect appears. With a low-quality source, people learn to interpret repetition in different ways. 12/

We also find evidence that the illusory truth effect is stronger for implausible headlines. Rather than being a bias that prevents the processing of other info, repetition appears to form a prior (towards truth) that is integrated with what people know about the item. 11/

Second, intuitive participants (measured by CRT) show a much stronger illusory truth effect in the high-quality condition. However, they show almost minimal effects of rep in low-quality. Deliberative participants show small illusory truth in both. 10/

Are intuitions adapting? We think yes. First, response times are much faster for repeated headlines, a hallmark of processing fluency. But, the effect of rep on RTs is identical by condition. Repetition/fluency is intuitively interpreted even in the low-quality condition. 9/

But how do we adapt? In prior work, intuitions adapt to sources allowing for quick approx. Bayesian inference. Here, we argue that repetition is processed intuitively, both in the standard illusory truth effect and its reinterpretation in low-quality. Thread from old site:
x.com/DG_Rand/stat... 8/

While there is a diff by condition, the avg is + in low-quality. But, when we look at ind-level effects, most ppl in low-quality show NO illusory truth. We find frequent use of a new strategy in low-quality: decrease belief in repeated items. As ppl learn, they begin to adapt. 7/

Is the effect of repetition moderated by source credibility? YES!

The effect of repetition is about ¼ the size in the low-quality condition. This moderation occurs for true and false items. 6/

To test this prediction, ppl see 3 True & 3 False headlines repeated in 3 exposure phases + 1 judgment phase. Ppl randomized to a high-quality condition see many novel headlines that are largely true. Those in low-quality see mostly false. Feed quality -> source credibility. 5/

The model unifies 4 findings in the lit: a) baseline illusory truth, b) each additional repetition has a smaller effect on beliefs, c) repetition effects are larger for implausible items, d) novel items are believed less when repetition is common. More explanation in fig 4/

Our model captures the informational value of repetition: When a source repeats a piece of info, it is less likely to have been sent by mistake. When the source is credible, repetition signals this info is more likely to be true. 3/

Despite what it feels like, ppl consume mostly true info from credible sources (fig from @jennyallen.bsky.social ). Sources are usually good but sometimes err – friends lie, credible news sources retract.

In a formal model, we investigate what this implies for repeated info. 2/

New WP!
The illusory truth effect (repetition -> belief) is core to psych of beliefs, & thought to be a deep bias impacting misinfo, persuasion & advertising

Why would cognition include such a flaw? We argue it is a rational adaptation to high-quality info environments 🧵1/

Very excited about this paper! And make sure to check out my talk tomorrow if you’re at SJDM

Check out our new working paper!

While Elon Musk’s embrace of the right has had horrible effects, it puts him in a place to be a credible messenger to Reps about the importance of climate change. Showing Rs his pro-climate tweets causes meaningful changes in pro-climate beliefs & intended actions.

Perceptions of scientists (or other experts) play a key role in the public response to science communication. By mapping out people's belief systems, we can more clearly see how the same message can be interpreted in different ways, and design even better interventions.

These patterns of belief updating are consistent with a model of hierarchical Bayesian inference. When presented with consensus, people update their beliefs about climate change and scientists in a principled manner.

We test 2 interventions in conjunction with consensus information. One of these interventions, which focused on the long-established history of climate science, proved particularly effective at boosting climate belief above and beyond scientific consensus.