A rose by any other name: A social-cognitive perspective on poets and poetry

Abstract

Evidence, anecdotal and scientific, suggests that people treat (or are affected by) products of prestigious sources differently than those of less prestigious, or of anonymous, sources. The “products” which are the focus of the present study are poems, and the “sources” are the poets. We explore the manner in which the poet’s name affects the experience of reading a poem. Study 1 establishes the effect we wish to address: a poet’s reputation enhances the evaluation of a poem. Study 2 asks whether it is only the reported evaluation of the poem that is enhanced by the poet’s name (as was the case for The Emperor’s New Clothes) or the enhancement is genuine and unaware. Finding for the latter, Study 3 explores whether the poet’s name changes the reader’s experience of it, so that in a sense one is reading a “different” poem. We conclude that it is not so much that the attributed poem really differs from the unattributed poem, as that it is just ineffably better. The name of a highly regarded poet seems to prime quality, and the poem becomes somehow better. This is a more subtle bias than the deliberate one rejected in Study 2, but it is a bias nonetheless. Ethical implications of this kind of effect are discussed.

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit

“…Although this is likely how bullshit is often encountered in everyday life, it may be that some skepticism about the source of the statement is the key force that may guard against bullshit acceptance. For example, poems attributed to prestigious sources are evaluated more positively (Bar-Hillel, Maharshak, Moshinsky & Nofech, 2012). Interpretation is difficult and humans surely rely on simple heuristics (e.g., "do I trust the source?")…”

The Distinctive Characteristics of Bullshit: Intention, Meaningfulness, and Source Reliability

“…Based on the extant literature on different contextual effects (e.g. Bar-Hillel et al, 2012;Fritz et al, 2012), this finding is not more surprising than the finding that participants evaluate a pricey wine as more pleasant than that very same wine but with a lower price tag, or no price tag at all (Plassman et al, 2008). Such findings are in line with the Bovens and Hartmann's (2003) source of information reliability account, according to which, in certain situations, it is considered rational to give judgements about the content based on the reliability of it's source.…”

“…Namely, profoundness of all statements will increase, decrease and remain the same after attribution to reliable, unreliable, and fictional authors, respectively (Ilić & Damnjanović, 2021). This prediction is based on numerous studies using a plethora of different stimuli to show the robust effects of the source or even price on evaluations of the quality of stimuli (Bar-Hillel, Maharshak, Moshinsky &Nofech, 2012;De Araujo, Rolls, Velazco, Margot & Cayeux, 2005;Fritz, Curtin, Poitevineau, Morrel-Samuels, & Tao, 2012;Plassmann, O'Doherty, Shiv, & Rangel, 2008;Valsesia, Nunes, & Ordanini, 2014). Regarding the intensity of these effects, and influence of the characteristics of the statements on the sizes of those effects we make no predictions, as no previous data is available to guide our assumtions.…”

Human favoritism, not AI aversion: People’s perceptions (and bias) toward generative AI, human experts, and human–GAI collaboration in persuasive content generation

“…Bar -Hillel et al (2012) show that revealing the name of a highly regarded poet serves as a quality prime, which enhances the reading experience that subsequently results in a higher perceived quality of the poem. One might wonder whether a higher perceived quality of human-generated content in the 'informed' condition is due to a quality prime (i.e., knowing that the human creators are top industry professionals affects the 'evaluation experience') or due to 'biased favoritism' toward human experts.…”