A simple self-reflection intervention boosts the detection of targeted advertising

Abstract Online platforms’ data give advertisers the ability to “microtarget” recipients’ personal vulnerabilities by tailoring different messages for the same thing, such as a product or political candidate. One possible response is to raise awareness for and resilience against such manipulative strategies through psychological inoculation. Two online experiments (total $$N= 828$$ N = 828 ) demonstrated that a short, simple intervention prompting participants to reflect on an attribute of their own personality—by completing a short personality questionnaire—boosted their ability to accurately identify ads that were targeted at them by up to 26 percentage points. Accuracy increased even without personalized feedback, but merely providing a description of the targeted personality dimension did not improve accuracy. We argue that such a “boosting approach,” which here aims to improve people’s competence to detect manipulative strategies themselves, should be part of a policy mix aiming to increase platforms’ transparency and user autonomy

The Transmission Game: Testing behavioral interventions in a pandemic-like simulation

During pandemics, effective nonpharmaceutical interventions encourage people to adjust their behavior in fast-changing environments in which exponential dynamics aggravate the conflict between the individual benefits of risk-taking and its social costs. Policy-makers need to know which interventions are most likely to promote socially advantageous behaviors. We designed a tool for initial evaluations of the effectiveness of large-scale interventions, the transmission game framework, which integrates simulations of outbreak dynamics into large-group experiments with monetary stakes. In two studies (n = 700), we found substantial differences in the effectiveness of five behavioral interventions. A simple injunctive-norms message proved most effective, followed by two interventions boosting participants’ ability to anticipate the consequences of risky behavior. Interventions featuring descriptive norms or concurrent risk information failed to reduce risk-taking

Prospect relativity: how choice options influence decision under risk.

In many theories of decision under risk (e.g., expected utility theory, rank-dependent utility theory, and prospect theory), the utility of a prospect is independent of other options in the choice set. The experiments presented here show a large effect of the available options, suggesting instead that prospects are valued relative to one another. The judged certainty equivalent for a prospect is strongly influenced by the options available. Similarly, the selection of a preferred prospect is strongly influenced by the prospects available. Alternative theories of decision under risk (e.g., the stochastic difference model, multialternative decision field theory, and range frequency theory), where prospects are valued relative to one another, can provide an account of these context effects

How to detect high-performing individuals and groups: Decision similarity predicts accuracy

Distinguishing between high- and low-performing individuals and groups is of prime importance in a wide range of high-stakes contexts. While this is straightforward when accurate records of past performance exist, these records are unavailable in most real-world contexts. Focusing on the class of binary decision problems, we use a combined theoretical and empirical approach to develop and test a approach to this important problem. First, we use a general mathematical argument and numerical simulations to show that the similarity of an individual's decisions to others is a powerful predictor of that individual's decision accuracy. Second, testing this prediction with several large datasets on breast and skin cancer diagnostics, geopolitical forecasting, and a general knowledge task, we find that decision similarity robustly permits the identification of high-performing individuals and groups. Our findings offer a simple, yet broadly applicable, heuristic for improving real-world decision-making systems

Assessing Optical and Electrical Properties of Highly Active IrO_x Catalysts for the Electrochemical Oxygen Evolution Reaction via Spectroscopic Ellipsometry

Efficient water electrolysis requires highly active electrodes. The activity of corresponding catalytic coatings strongly depends on material properties such as film thickness, crystallinity, electrical conductivity, and chemical surface speciation. Measuring these properties with high accuracy in vacuum-free and non-destructive methods facilitates the elucidation of structure–activity relationships in realistic environments. Here, we report a novel approach to analyze the optical and electrical properties of highly active oxygen evolution reaction (OER) catalysts via spectroscopic ellipsometry (SE). Using a series of differently calcined, mesoporous, templated iridium oxide films as an example, we assess the film thickness, porosity, electrical resistivity, electron concentration, electron mobility, and interband and intraband transition energies by modeling of the optical spectra. Independently performed analyses using scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, ellipsometric porosimetry, X-ray reflectometry, and absorption spectroscopy indicate a high accuracy of the deduced material properties. A comparison of the derived analytical data from SE, resonant photoemission spectroscopy, X-ray absorption spectroscopy, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy with activity measurements of the OER suggests that the intrinsic activity of iridium oxides scales with a shift of the Ir 5d t2g sub-level and an increase of p–d interband transition energies caused by a transition of μ1-OH to μ3-O species

A probabilistic analysis of argument cogency

This paper offers a probabilistic treatment of the conditions for argument cogency as endorsed in informal logic: acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. Treating a natural language argument as a reason-claim-complex, our analysis identifies content features of defeasible argument on which the RSA conditions depend, namely: change in the commitment to the reason, the reason’s sensitivity and selectivity to the claim, one’s prior commitment to the claim, and the contextually determined thresholds of acceptability for reasons and for claims. Results contrast with, and may indeed serve to correct, the informal understanding and applications of the RSA criteria concerning their conceptual dependence, their function as update-thresholds, and their status as obligatory rather than permissive norms, but also show how these formal and informal normative approachs can in fact align

Resolving content moderation dilemmas between free speech and harmful misinformation

When moderating content online, two key values may come into conflict: protecting freedom of expression and preventing harm. Robust rules based in part on how citizens think about these moral dilemmas are necessary to deal with the unprecedented scale and urgency of this conflict in a principled way. Yet little is known about people’s judgments and preferences around content moderation. We examined such moral dilemmas in a conjoint survey experiment where respondents (N=2,564) indicated whether they would remove problematic social media posts on election denial, anti-vaccination, Holocaust denial, and climate change denial and whether they would take punitive action against the accounts. Respondents were shown key information about the user and their post, as well as the consequences of the misinformation. The majority preferred quashing harmful misinformation over protecting free speech. Respondents were more likely to remove posts and suspend accounts if the consequences were severe and if it was a repeated offence. Features related to the account itself (the person behind the account, their partisanship, and the number of followers) had little to no effect on respondents’ decisions. Content moderation of harmful misinformation was a partisan issue: Across all four scenarios, Republicans were consistently less willing than Democrats or Independents to delete posts or penalize the accounts that posted them. Our results can inform the design of transparent rules of content moderation for human and algorithmic moderators.Effective Protection of Fundamental Rights in a pluralist worl