💡New paper (with the fantastic @BellaRen19 & @ME_Schweitzer@Wharton) examining the role of social motives in spreading misinformation/conspiracy theories.
They show how pervasive misinfo spread is & how people reason at the individual level.
3/N
Here, we are interested in the *collective* dimension of misinfo spread. We focus on social motives (e.g., feeling of belongingness, norms etc.) as a motivating mechanism to spread conspiracy theories (CT).
Understanding these social dynamics is important. And challenging.
4/N
We consider the possibility that people share CTs that they know to be untrue to advance ulterior motives, such as to build social ties.
We introduce a novel framework & show that social motives can overwhelm accuracy motives➡️people to share what they know to be false
5/N
Across 3 preregistered studies (total N=1,560 Prolific workers), we investigate the social motives for sharing conspiracy theories.
Study 1 finds that people are willing to trade off accuracy to build social connections when sharing CTs. So it's not inattentiveness alone.
6/N
In Study 2, participants were either incentivized to be accurate or received social rewards (likes/comments from others)
Finding: people anticipated that sharing CTs generates higher social approval than real news but also knew what's real and what's fake when incentivized.
7/N
In Study 3, we show how social reinforcement influences CT sharing behavior.
We developed an interactive platform that mimics Twitter. Participants could share real news / CTs & were either rewarded for the former or the latter with likes & approval (no monetary incentives)
8/8
We find that social reinforcement for CT sharing indeed amplifies CT sharing; not the case for true news sharing.
Note: though participants in different conditions shared CTs at different rates, across conditions, no more than 10% participants believed that CTs were true.
Title was cut-off in the original post so here it is in full:
☢️New @CESifoGroup WP☢️
⦿I quantify impact of political polarization on social preferences via 15(!) incentive-compatible experiments
⦿I also test if #nudging can reduce polarization (it can't)
1st of all, the paper contains many experiments and interventions. After the initial submission of this paper, reviewers asked to not only quantify the detrimental impact of polarization but also test behavioral interventions to alleviate it.
💥New WP: Hate Trumps Love💥
RQ: study behavioral-, belief- & norm-based mechanisms through which perceptions of closeness, altruism & cooperativeness are affected by political polarization under @realDonaldTrump
RQ: how do we engage in deviant behavior when social #norms are uncertain?
A: self-serving belief distortion
Paper: bit.ly/2Go0tJk
Thread ⬇
1/
Known:
◈ #Lies are ubiquitous & people often lie for their own benefit or for others (@UriGneezy et al., 2018 AER, Abeler et al., 2019 Ecta)
◈ Reasons (not) to lie: ethical dissonance, image concerns...
--> we take a complementary approach: norm-following considerations
2/
Existing scientific approach to the study of norms:
◈ Clearly define norms and study how individuals react (tradition of @RobertCialdini, @CBicchieri, Fehr & others)
◈ Find: social norms motivate and affect personal decisions, even when they are not in our own self-interest
Governments use substantial resources to keep society safe and punish people for criminal acts. Mass incarceration is both costly and ineffective.
Understanding how to design proper institutions is important from both the social and economic perspective.
A vast literature on criminal deterrence has focused on the relevance of the certainty and severity of punishment in deterring deviant behavior (following the Becker tradition).
We examine a third and understudied element (see HOPE program): celerity (swiftness of punishment)