Some people just want to watch the world burn: the prevalence, psychology and politics of the ‘Need for Chaos’

Arceneaux, Kevin; Gravelle, Timothy B.; Osmundsen, Mathias; Petersen, Michael Bang; Reifler, Jason; Scotto, Thomas J.

doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0147

Cited by 44 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research, therefore, needs to shed light on the catalysts that turn omnipresent information processing biases into actual evidence rejection and science denial. For example, some have linked the promotion of misinformation to a deep-seated psychological need for chaos that is more prevalent on the political right (see [81]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample

Ecker

Sze

Andreotta

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misinformation often has a continuing effect on people's reasoning despite clear correction. One factor assumed to affect post-correction reliance on misinformation is worldview-driven motivated reasoning. For example, a recent study with an Australian undergraduate sample found that when politically situated misinformation was retracted, political partisanship influenced the effectiveness of the retraction. This worldview effect was asymmetrical, that is, particularly pronounced in politically conservative participants. However, the evidence regarding such worldview effects (and their symmetry) has been inconsistent. Thus, the present study aimed to extend previous findings by examining a sample of 429 pre-screened US participants supporting either the Democratic or Republican Party. Participants received misinformation suggesting that politicians of either party were more likely to commit embezzlement; this was or was not subsequently retracted, and participants' inferential reasoning was measured. While political worldview (i.e. partisanship) influenced the extent to which participants relied on the misinformation overall, retractions were equally effective across all conditions. There was no impact of political worldview on retraction effectiveness, let alone evidence of a backfire effect, and thus we did not replicate the asymmetry observed in the Australian-based study. This pattern emerged despite some evidence that Republicans showed a stronger emotional response than Democrats to worldview-incongruent misinformation. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample

Ecker

Sze

Andreotta

2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…How humans trade-off the prospective benefits of ( preventing) political change against the immediate cost of conflict remains poorly understood. One prominent line of work has related contentious politics to political ideologies and the associated differences in people's moral conviction and cognitive style [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Unfortunately, findings are mixed and often limited to specific political issues and contexts [22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political games of attack and defence

Dreu

Pliskin

Rojek-Giffin

et al. 2021

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political conflicts often revolve around changing versus defending a status quo . We propose to capture the dynamics between proponents and opponents of political change in terms of an asymmetric game of attack and defence with its equilibrium in mixed strategies. Formal analyses generate predictions about effort expended on revising and protecting the status quo , the form and function of false signalling and cheap talk, how power differences impact conflict intensity and the likelihood of status quo revision. Laboratory experiments on the neurocognitive and hormonal foundations of attack and defence reveal that out-of-equilibrium investments in attack emerge because of non-selfish preferences, limited capacity to compute costs and benefits and optimistic beliefs about the chances of winning from one's rival. We conclude with implications for the likelihood of political change and inertia, and discuss the role of ideology in political games of attack and defence. This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

show abstract

“…Ironically, this occurs despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of participants say that it is important to only share accurate news (Pennycook et al, 2021). Although factors such as animosity toward political opponents (Osmundsen et al, 2021) and a "need for chaos" (Arceneaux et al, 2021) may also contribute to misinformation sharing, evidence suggests that mere inattention to accuracy plays an important role in this disconnect between accuracy judgments and sharing (while purposeful sharing of falsehoods is relatively rare; .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation

Pennycook¹,

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simply failing to consider accuracy when deciding what to share on social media has been shown to play an important role in the spread of online misinformation. Interventions that shift users’ attention towards the concept of accuracy – accuracy prompts or nudges – are therefore a promising approach to improve the quality of news content that users share and therefore reduce misinformation online. Here we test the replicability and generalizability of this effect by conducting a personal meta-analysis of 20 accuracy prompt survey experiments (total N=26,245) that our group ran using American participants between 2017 and 2020. These experiments used a wide range of different accuracy prompts tested using a large variety of headline sets and with participants recruited from qualitatively different subject pools. We find that overall, accuracy prompts increased sharing discernment (difference in sharing intentions for true relative to false headlines) by 72% relative to the control, and that this effect was primarily driven by reducing sharing intentions for false headlines (10% reduction relative to the control). The magnitude of the accuracy prompt effect on sharing discernment did not significantly differ for headlines about politics versus COVID-19, and was larger for headline sets where users were less likely to distinguish between true and false headlines at baseline. With respect to individual-level variables, the treatment effect on sharing discernment was not significantly moderated by gender, race, or political ideology, and was significantly larger for older participants, participants who were higher on cognitive reflection, and participants who passed more attention check questions. These results suggest that accuracy prompt effects are replicable and generalize across prompts and headlines, and thus offer a promising approach for fighting against misinformation.

show abstract

Some people just want to watch the world burn: the prevalence, psychology and politics of the ‘Need for Chaos’

Cited by 44 publications

References 21 publications

Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample

Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a US convenience sample

Political games of attack and defence

Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About