Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think
Nature,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
630(8015), P. 29 - 32
Published: June 5, 2024
In
today's
polarized
political
climate,
researchers
who
combat
mistruths
have
come
under
attack
and
been
labelled
as
unelected
arbiters
of
truth.
But
the
fight
against
misinformation
is
valid,
warranted
urgently
required.
Language: Английский
Disagreement as a way to study misinformation and its effects
Damian Hodel,
No information about this author
Jevin D. West
No information about this author
Published: March 20, 2025
Experts
consider
misinformation
a
significant
societal
concern
due
to
its
associated
problems
like
political
polarization,
erosion
of
trust,
and
public
health
challenges.
However,
these
broad
effects
can
occur
independently
misinformation,
illustrating
misalignment
with
the
narrow
focus
prevailing
concept.
We
propose
using
disagreement—conflicting
attitudes
beliefs—as
more
effective
framework
for
studying
effects.
This
approach,
example,
reveals
limitations
current
interventions
offers
method
empirically
test
whether
we
are
living
in
post-truth
era.
Language: Английский
Valuing different forms of knowledge predicts belief in epistemically suspect claims: Development and validation of the Foundations of Knowledge Questionnaire
Published: Feb. 16, 2024
In
an
era
where
polarisation,
alterative
facts
and
conspiracy
theories
pervade
public
discourse,
understanding
differences
in
the
way
people
conceive
of
truth
knowledge
is
key
to
unravelling
contrasting
worldviews.
this
paper,
we
develop
validate
Foundations
Knowledge
Questionnaire,
a
psychometric
tool
measure
trust
various
ways
knowing.
Study
1,
identify
six
distinct
factors
or
foundations—Expert
authority,
Reason,
Intuition,
Personal
experience,
Faith,
Culture.
Studies
2
3,
demonstrate
that
factor
structure
provides
good
fit,
provide
evidence
for
strong
internal
consistency,
test-retest
reliability,
convergent
discriminant
validity
these
factors.
Scores
on
each
also
moderately
predict
how
individuals
rate
persuasiveness
arguments,
but
there
was
mixed
as
well
they
general
behaviour
problem
solving.
Most
interestingly,
4,
foundations
(factors)
correlated
with
belief
epistemically
suspect
claims,
adding
unique
explanatory
power.
Implications,
limitations,
future
directions
are
discussed.
This
questionnaire
offers
insights
into
diverse
underpinning
human
cognition
systems,
implications
reasoning
decision-making.
Language: Английский
Bullshitting and Bullibility – Conditions and Consequences
John V. Petrocelli,
No information about this author
Li Yanying,
No information about this author
Enhui Wang
No information about this author
et al.
Social Psychology,
Journal Year:
2024,
Volume and Issue:
55(5), P. 262 - 279
Published: Sept. 1, 2024
Abstract:
Bullshitting
involves
communicating
with
little
to
no
regard
for
truth,
established
knowledge,
or
genuine
evidence
in
a
way
that
helps
people
impress,
persuade,
influence,
confuse
others,
embellish
explain
things
an
area
which
their
obligations
provide
opinions
exceed
actual
knowledge
those
domains.
Put
another
way,
bullshitting
encompasses
set
of
rhetorical
strategies
employed
help
person
sound
like
they
know
what
are
talking
about
when
really
do
not.
Although
bullshit
can
be
useful
individual
bullshitters
as
persuasive
tool,
it
have
considerable
negative
consequences
learning,
memory,
attitudes,
opinions,
and
beliefs
is
believed
true.
Deeper
understanding
the
conditions
under
general
bullibility
(i.e.,
consistent
failure
discern
from
nonbullshit
despite
social
cues
signaling
something
bullshit)
likely
emerge
should
position
observers
more
successful
vantage
point
detect
this
deceptive
behavior
others.
Language: Английский