Valentin Mang

A new paper by George Borjas—who served this past year in the Trump White House designing some of its anti-immigration policies—claims to display evidence of ideological bias among researchers who study immigration.

doi.org/10.1126/scia...

🧵 Thread—>

Are leaders blamed for disasters that eventually did not occur? The answer points to the crucial impact of partisanship in assigning blame for events that almost happened. @jexpsocpsych.bsky.social w/ Matejas Mackin, @danieleffron.bsky.social, and Neal Roese
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Motivated reasoning is a well-understood phenomenon - or is it?

In a new paper just published at @collabrapsychology.bsky.social we discuss three known unknowns.

doi.org/10.1525/coll...

Here is a 🧵

screenshot of my post

Big new blogpost!

My guide to data visualization, which includes a very long table of contents, tons of charts, and more.

--> Why data visualization matters and how to make charts more effective, clear, transparent, and sometimes, beautiful.
www.scientificdiscovery.dev/p/salonis-gu...

Edit: The 2nd point in post 5 should read "Is positively (vs. not significantly) associated with reading times for conspiracy (vs. non-conspiracy) articles"

More research is certainly needed before using counterfactual thinking to tackle conspiracy theories in the field, but our paper provides a promising first step.

Again, if you want to know more, read the paper here: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

n/n

We also find that high conspiracy mentality:
- Makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines)
- Reduces reading times for conspiracy articles (but not non-conspiracy articles)
- Does not change the effects of counterfactual thinking manipulations

5/n

3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles

4/n

Key findings:

1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.

2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.
3/n

If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Below is a summary of the most important findings.

2/n

Screenshot of the abstract for the article "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole: Counterfactual thinking reduces engagement with conspiracy theories" in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

New paper out in @jexpsocpsych.bsky.social !

We (@kwinter.bsky.social, @kaiepstude.bsky.social , Bob Fennis and I) found that encouraging counterfactual thinking reduces engagement with conspiracy theories (i.e., clicks on, and reading times for, conspiracy articles).

A 🧵

1/n

More research is certainly needed before using counterfactual thinking to tackle conspiracy theories in the field, but our paper provides a promising first step.

Again, read the paper here if you want to know more: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

n/n

We also find that high conspiracy mentality:
- Makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines)
- Reduces reading times for conspiracy articles (but not non-conspiracy articles)
- Does not shape the effects of counterfactual thinking manipulations

5/n

3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles

4/n

Key findings:

1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.

2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.
3/n

If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Below is a summary of the most important findings.

2/n

While more research is needed before using counterfactual thinking in the field, our findings offer a promising first step toward reducing conspiracy engagement.

n/n

We also find that being drawn to conspiracy theories (i.e., high conspiracy mentality) makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines) and spend more time reading conspiracy articles (but not less time reading non-conspiracy articles).

5/n

3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles

4/n

Key findings:

1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.

2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.

3/n

If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...

Below is a summary of the most important findings.

2/n

At ZPID we are searching for a tenure track assistant professor for Psychological Metascience in joint appointment with @unitrier.bsky.social preferably someone who has conducted quantitative research in metascience in psychology or related disciplines. Questions? Feel free to contact me personally.

Three schematic diagrams. The first illustrates selective publishing of internal resection, the second selective causal focus, and the third selective access and funding for researchers.

1. We ( @jbakcoleman.bsky.social, @cailinmeister.bsky.social, @jevinwest.bsky.social, and I) have a new preprint up on the arXiv.

There we explore how social media companies and other online information technology firms are able to manipulate scientific research about the effects of their products.

The deadline for the meeting on counterfactuals is coming up. Don't forget to send in your contribution.

Is There a Better Way to Fight Misinformation? What if the best way to counter misinformation isn’t arguing facts, but offering better truths instead?

“Bypassing” is a promising strategy for countering misinformation by sharing truthful, positively framed statements instead of direct corrections. New research shows it can correct misperceptions effectively, especially when people are still open to learning.
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/misg...

The State Department closes the office that flags disinformation from Russia, China and Iran The State Department has shut down the office that sought to deal with misinformation and disinformation that Russia, China and Iran have been accused of spreading.

Killing both academic research and government watchdogs protecting us from foreign manipulation campaigns

apnews.com/article/rubi...

I got an email yesterday afternoon that my NSF SPRF Postdoctoral Fellowship was terminated. My grant focused on testing interventions to address online misinformation and I was 8 months into a two year appointment.

This statement from the NSF is insane.

Science is, in essence, designed to separate the true from the false.

Understanding how falsehoods spread is key to the scientific endeavor. It is not a violation of free speech to be proven wrong.

Congratulations! Sounds like a highly interesting paper!

Special Issue on "The Psychology of Pushback" We are currently accepting submissions for a special issue on "The Psychology of Pushback: Understanding Resistance and Compliance During Democratic Decline."

Call for papers: “The Psychology of Pushback: Understanding Resistance and Compliance During Democratic Decline.”
Edited by Jonas R. Kunst and John F. Dovidio.
advances.in/psychology/1...