How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online

Abstract

Public opinion is shaped in significant part by online content, spread via social media and curated algorithmically. The current online ecosystem has been designed predominantly to capture user attention rather than to promote deliberate cognition and autonomous choice; information overload, finely tuned personalization and distorted social cues, in turn, pave the way for manipulation and the spread of false information. How can transparency and autonomy be promoted instead, thus fostering the positive potential of the web? Effective web governance informed by behavioural research is critically needed to empower individuals online. We identify technologically available yet largely untapped cues that can be harnessed to indicate the epistemic quality of online content, the factors underlying algorithmic decisions and the degree of consensus in online debates. We then map out two classes of behavioural interventions-nudging and boosting-that enlist these cues to redesign online environments for informed and autonomous choice.

Public attitudes towards algorithmic personalization and use of personal data online: Evidence from Germany, Great Britain, and the United States

“…If this explanation is correct, then in order for privacy concerns and behavior to match more closely, the data privacy functions of online services should be more accessible, explained in simpler terms, and easy to use. Behavioral interventions (e.g., digital nudging and boosting; see 26,27) can also be employed to empower users to align their privacy protective measures to their level of privacy concern. New transparency measures could enable people to exercise their preferences in a more nuanced way; this would be an important next step towards regaining autonomy in the online world.…”

Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools

“…Boosting cognitive competencies online by redesigning the environment might involve changing the way information is presented to users or providing additional cues to existing information to improve the epistemic quality of online content (Lorenz-Spreen, Lewandowsky, et al, 2020). For example, such informational boosts can draw on research in algorithmic detection of false rumors; for example, Vosoughi et al (2017) identified three categories of cues predictive of the veracity of online information (in this case, information shared on Twitter): people (who spreads the news), linguistic content (what words are used), and propagation dynamics (the shape of an information cascade).…”

Misinformation Regarding 5G and COVID-19 and the Psychological Mechanism Behind Them

“…These websites also take advantage of the asymmetry of knowledge and difference in expertise between the writers and the readers to help the spreading their rumor. Asymmetry of knowledge and difference in expertise refers to the gap in the level of knowledge between the writer and the reader in a given subject, which makes a reader believe the website is a reliable source, instead of questioning its legitimacy (Lorenz-Spreen, Lewandowsky, Sunstein, & Hertwig, 2020;Clarkson, Jacobsen, & Batcheller, 2007).…”

“…When one reads something on social media, they can choose to share it with their followers, and their followers can choose to do the same. This reposting cycle is known as the rumor cascading effect, and it increases the speed of the spread of misinformation (Lorenz-Spreen, Lewandowsky, Sunstein, & Hertwig, 2020). Source monitoring, on the other hand, refers to the tendency for readers to remember solely the content of an article or other forms of media, and ignores or misremembers the source of said media (Dywan & Jacoby, 1990).…”

“…communication, something Liberals are pushing in large cities, their motivated reasoning overpowers their skepticism, and they immediately give their trust to these websites. To disguise themselves as reliable, they would cherry pick topics and keep in certain parts of actual real information, which would make it incredibly confusing for a reader who decides to check the legitimacy of the source (Lorenz-Spreen, Lewandowsky, Sunstein, & Hertwig, 2020). To further confuse the reader and curb the skepticism, these websites cite an enormous number of sources, even if their relevance to the topic is extremely low.…”