Differences in faces do make a difference: Diversity perceptions and preferences in faces

Throughout previous research focusing on individuals' diversity perception, it remains somewhat unclear which attributes (i.e., objective diversity) are reflected in perceptions of diversity. This manuscript investigates whether individuals consider objective differences in ambiguous facial information (which are not related to gender or race) when making diversity judgments and decisions. Throughout seven studies, facial information of group members was manipulated to appear more similar or different in regards to personality and information unrelated to Big 5 dimensions, while race, gender, and age were kept constant. Study 1a provides support that objective differences in facial information related to perceived personality traits is validly reflected in perceptions of diversity. Study 1b shows that results regarding the Big 5 can be replicated in an ensemble-coding setup. Studies 2a and 2b replicate this result, additionally showing that objective differences in facial information unrelated to the Big 5 are reflected in perceptions of diversity, too. Focusing on perceived extraversion, Study 3 reveals that individuals select faces differing (similar) in extraversion information in order to assemble a diverse (homogeneous) team. Study 4 investigates diversity choices in an ambiguous setting, showing that individuals who more strongly believe in the value of diversity are more likely to assemble a team that is objectively diverse regarding facial information. Study 5 indicates that the association between diversity in facial information and choices deteriorates if other attributes such as gender are varied too. The impact of the results for research is highlighted and discussed

Toss and turn or toss and stop? A coin flip reduces the need for information in decision-making

When deciding between two options, settling can be difficult if one option is superior on one dimension but inferior on another. To arrive at a conclusion, people may gather further information, thereby running the risk of prolonging or blocking the decision-making process or even making suboptimal decisions. Here, we suggest that random decision aids may prove fruitful by reducing the need for further information. Five experiments (total N = 997) examined how information need is influenced after making a preliminary decision between two options and then receiving a suggestion from a random decision aid (a coin flip). Across studies, coin participants are less likely to request additional information (Study 1 and two follow-up studies, combined p = .021) and indicate a lower need for additional information (Study 2, p = .023, and Study 3, p = .001) compared to a control condition without a coin flip. Interestingly, participants do not necessarily adhere to the coin but stick to their preliminary decision as much as or even more than the control group, suggesting that the decision aid does not determine the decision outcome. This is true for hypothetical decisions between changing versus maintaining the status quo without an objectively correct solution (Studies 1, 1b, and 1c), for a decision between two options with an objectively correct solution (Study 2), and for a real monetary decision without an objectively correct solution (Study 3). Random decision aids may thus help to avoid decision blocks or the collection of too much information

Deciding advantageously after flipping a coin

Folk wisdom, advice columns, and pop culture suggest that when undecided, individuals may flip a coin - not to simply follow the suggestion, but to inspect their reaction to the outcome and then use the reaction to decide. While being intuitively appealing, it remains an open question whether this strategy results in advantageous decisions. Here we used an adapted version of the Iowa Gambling Task to test whether flipping a coin before making a decision may result in advantageous choices. Participants from the general public (N = 542) participated in the adapted Iowa Gambling Task. Results suggest that, under certain conditions, using a coin flip results in a higher likelihood to choose the objectively better option after 40 trials and a steeper learning curve throughout the game. Furthermore, after 40 trials, coin- compared to control-participants described themselves as more certain and the task as easier. This study is the first to show that flipping a coin may prove beneficial, objectively by leading to better decisions, and subjectively by resulting in reduced difficulty and higher certainty

This outcome feels right! subjective evaluations of coin flip outcomes reflect previously stated preferences

When facing a difficult decision, individuals may rely on a coin flip to help them come to a conclusion. In some cases, however, individuals might not adhere to the coin's outcome, but instead report liking or disliking the coin flip's outcome, and may use this affective reaction to form their decision. In this manuscript we investigate the affective reaction towards the outcome of a coin flip and determine whether this affective reaction provides valid feedback in regards to individuals' underlying preferences (Hypothesis 1). We further test whether flipping a coin results in a higher alignment between previous preferences and subsequent decisions (Hypothesis 2). We conducted three studies in the lab and with online samples. Throughout all studies we found support for the notion that the affective reactions regarding the coin flip's outcome validly reflect previously indicated preferences or attractiveness ratings. Contrary to wide-spread expectations, however, we did not find reliable support for the notion that flipping a coin, compared to a control group, leads to decisions that are more in line with the previously stated preferences

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance.

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver; a gap we aim to fill in this project. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate in three studies (N = 705) whether confiding a secret to somebody might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test whether the valence of the secrets moderates the hypothesized effect. While confiding negative secrets might signal a high level of trust and lead to a similar closeness as confiding positive secrets, they might also present a burden to the receiver and lead to a different pattern of closeness. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods and investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focused on the receiver and showed that another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreased the distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 tested how an observer perceives the relationship between two people. Distance was judged to decrease when secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) were shared, however, this difference was not significant. Study 3 tested whether lay theories about sharing secrets predict behavior, and how sharing information may be used to change perceived distance on the receiver's side. Participants preferred to share neutral compared to secret information and positive compared to negative secrets irrespective of the distance condition. Our results contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other

Secretive and close? How sharing secrets may impact perceptions of distance

Having secrets is incredibly common. However, secrecy has only recently started to receive more attention in research. What has largely been neglected are the consequences of secret-sharing for the relationship between sharer and receiver; a gap we aim to fill in this project. Previous research has shown that closeness can make secret-sharing more likely. Building on research from the self-disclosure and relationship literature, we experimentally investigate in three studies (N = 705) whether confiding a secret to somebody might in turn increase perceptions of closeness. In addition, we test whether the valence of the secrets moderates the hypothesized effect. While confiding negative secrets might signal a high level of trust and lead to a similar closeness as confiding positive secrets, they might also present a burden to the receiver and lead to a different pattern of closeness. To provide a holistic picture, we build on a variety of methods and investigate three perspectives: Study 1 focused on the receiver and showed that another person sharing secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) decreased the distance in the eyes of the receiver. Study 2 tested how an observer perceives the relationship between two people. Distance was judged to decrease when secrets (vs. nonconfidential information) were shared, however, this difference was not significant. Study 3 tested whether lay theories about sharing secrets predict behavior, and how sharing information may be used to change perceived distance on the receiver’s side. Participants preferred to share neutral compared to secret information and positive compared to negative secrets irrespective of the distance condition. Our results contribute to the understanding of how sharing secrets affects the way individuals think about each other, how close they feel to each other, and how they interact with each other

What is New and True about Fake News?

Fake news are news pieces that are verifiably false, usually disseminated with an intent to deceive. Fake news are often associated with the political realm, but are not confined to it: marketing, journalism, and science are all confronted with the notion that misinformation and fact blur, and are intentionally blurred. By discrediting traditional sources of reliable information, the concept of fake news is further used as a means of political propaganda. This introductory chapter discusses conceptual issues, presents some examples of fake news in the context of changing technological dissemination opportunities, and offers a bird's eye view on the topics covered in this volume

Overview of means (and standard deviations) from Study 1 without listwise deletion (see ANOVA analysis above).

Overview of means (and standard deviations) from Study 1 without listwise deletion (see ANOVA analysis above).</p

Fig 1 -

Effects of secrecy and valence on change in social distance (left) and on closeness on the IOS scale (right) in Study 1. Change in social distance and IOS closeness ratings range from 1 (closer than before / largest distance between circles) to 7 (more distant than before / largest overlap between circles). Error bars represent standard errors.</p