Search

Examining how metaphor used to describe COVID-19 vaccine process (development, approval, etc.) might influence relevant attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours.

Aiming to replicate effects of framing of COVID-19 vaccine development/distribution/approval (etc.) as a race vs. effort. Biggest study design changes are 1) rewording messages somewhat (e.g., trying to further emphasize speed/strength distinctions), 3) adding additional materials potentially impacted by metaphor (e.g., preference for prioritization of U.S. vs. global concerns in vaccine distribution), 4) adding 'prescriptive' questions as well as 'descriptive' questions, 5) removing control condition, and 6) removing non-essential covariate (Urbanicity)

Aiming to replicate effects of framing of COVID-19 vaccine development/distribution/approval (etc.) as a race vs. effort. Biggest study design changes are 1) using a no-message control condition to ensure a neutral control, rather than the "issue"-focused (attempted neutral) wording used previously, 2) rewording messages somewhat (e.g., emphasizing distribution of vaccines given that vaccine development has progressed), 3) adding additional materials potentially impacted by metaphor (e.g., imagined regret after vaccinating)

This study investigates peoples' moral judgments of actors with and without skin in the game.

An experiment in a line of research investigating the role perceptions of predictability play in judgments of moral character.

While there is a theoretical debate regarding the relationship between legality and morality (i.e., Sunstein 1996, Cooter 1998, 2000), minimal empirical work has been done to examine how lay people view the relation between these two notions (Blaufus et al., 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine this question empirically, and extend on previous scholarship with the support of empirical data. This study aims to investigate whether the form of government creating laws (i.e., totalitarian vs democratic) can influence "wrongness" judgements and moral character judgements of the people navigating these laws, and their actions.

Replication of Studies 1-3.

Qualtrics Survey for Illusory Pattern Perception Predicts Beliefs in Pseudo Profound Bullshit Experiment 1

This is a pre-registration for Study 4 of the manuscript "Controlling the Narrative: Euphemistic Language Affects Judgments of Actions while Avoiding Perceptions of Dishonesty." The primary purpose of this experiment is to assess the following research questions: 1) Does substituting a disagreeable term (e.g., torture) with a semantically related agreeable term (e.g., enhanced interrogation) in an action-depicting statement lead to more positive evaluations of that action? 2) Does providing more information (i.e., details) regarding an act (making the true nature of the act less ambiguous) eliminate or reduce the effectiveness of agreeable terms making actions appear more positively (and likewise of disagreeable terms making actions appear more negatively)?

Pre-registered hypotheses for Illusory Pattern Perception Predicts Beliefs in Pseudo Profound Bullshit Experiment 1

An experiment in a line of research investigating the role perceptions of predictability play in judgments of moral character.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most important issue facing the world today. The effects of this pandemic are health-related, economic, social, and cultural. This study is part of an international project to collect measures related to social & moral psychology and examine the relationship with attitudes and behavioural intentions related to COVID19. The measures include beliefs in conspiracy theories, cooperation, risk perception, social belonging, intellectual humility, national identification, collective narcissism, moral identity, political ideology, self-esteem, and cognitive reflection. The goal is to generate a massive multi-national sample of representative samples that can serve as a public good for the scientific community. This registration concerns the Canadian sample and additional research questions posed by those involved with collecting the Canadian sample.

While there is a theoretical debate regarding the relationship between legality and morality (i.e., Sunstein 1996, Cooter 1998, 2000), minimal empirical work has been done to examine how lay people view the relation between these two notions (Blaufus et al., 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine this question empirically, and extend on previous scholarship with the support of empirical data. This study aims to investigate whether the intentionality of breaking a law can influence "wrongness" judgements of that act, as well as moral character judgements of the person enacting it.

Aiming to mitigate previously-found message inconsistency effects (e.g., reduced trust & expertise) via an intervention describing the nature of change in science and the role of public health authorities

A study investigating the impact of social defection on perceptions of predictability and morality.

This project is designed to investigate different types of outcomes in sports betting, with a primary focus on near-miss (e.g., winning 3 out of 4 games on a single ticket) and double near-miss (e.g., winning 3 out of 4 games while also narrowly missing the last game) outcomes. Since previous research has demonstrated negative effects associated with near-miss outcomes in other gambling forms, it is important to investigate near-miss outcomes in this context. Currently there exists no research that sheds light on the effects of near-miss outcomes in a sports betting domain. In order to investigate near-misses in sports betting, participants will experience one of four outcomes in a hypothetical sports betting task (i.e., loss, win, near-miss, double near-miss) and then rate their subjective experience on a number of dimensions.

Pre-registered hypotheses for Near Misses in Sports Betting Experiment 1

An experiment in a line of research investigating the role perceptions of predictability play in judgments of moral character, specifically for those acting within sacrificial moral dilemmas.

Pre-planned analyses to be conducted on the data collected for Near Misses in Sports Betting Experiment 1

Previous research has demonstrated that people who are more likely to perceive patterns in random sequences (e.g., coin flip sequences) are more likely to endorse supernatural and conspiracy beliefs. Additionally, past research has demonstrated that those possessing a more intuitive thinking style are more likely to endorse computer-generated pseudo-profound bullshit statements (i.e., statements constructed without any intention of meaning or truth) as profound. The primary purpose of the current study is to investigate the relation between illusory pattern perception and endorsement of pseudo-profound bullshit. We predict that those more likely to perceive patterns in random sequences will also be more likely to rate our pseudo-profound bullshit statements as profound. Furthermore, consistent with previous findings in the literature, we predict that participants more likely to perceive patterns in coin flip sequences will be more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs.

Examining effects of COVID-19 message (in)consistency on trust and behaviour (e..g, vaccination intention). Also examining relation between metaphor used for vaccine development/approval (race vs. effort measures) and vaccination intention.

The present work (N = 1,906 U.S. residents) investigates the extent to which peoples’ evaluations of actions can be biased by the strategic use of euphemistic (agreeable) and dysphemistic (disagreeable) terms. We find that participants’ evaluations of actions are made more favorable by replacing a disagreeable term (e.g., torture) with a semantically related agreeable term (e.g., enhanced interrogation) in an act’s description. Notably, the influence of agreeable and disagreeable terms was reduced (but not eliminated) when making actions less ambiguous by providing participants with a detailed description of each action. Despite their influence, participants judged both agreeable and disagreeable action descriptions as largely truthful and distinct from lies, and judged agents using such descriptions as more trustworthy and moral than liars. Overall, the results of the current study suggest that a strategic speaker can, through the careful use of language, sway the opinions of others in a preferred direction while avoiding many of the reputational costs associated with less subtle forms of linguistic manipulation (e.g., lying). Like the much-studied phenomenon of “fake news,” manipulative language can serve as a tool for misleading the public, doing so not with falsehoods but rather the strategic use of language.

Follow-up, aiming to strengthen effects of inconsistency on trust etc. and show moderation by forewarning

Do people want a big piece of a small pie, or a small piece of a huge pie? Societies differ based on how equally wealth may be distributed over population categories. Rhetoric takes advantage of this with one often cited example being that "1% of the population control X% of a society's wealth". This is often used to compare between societies, for example, one society may have it so that the top 1% of the population controls 45% of the wealth, while in another, the top 1% of the population may control 22%. What these simple comparisons miss however is the total wealth available in both societies. If both countries were equally wealthy overall, one may prefer to the live in the second, more equal society. However, if the more unequal society had an economy 200 times the size of the more equal one, a person might be better off accepting a smaller piece of that much larger pie. We are looking to introduce total economy size as a variable people may use to evaluate which societies they judge to be most desirable.

Qualtrics Survey for Near Misses in Sports Betting Experiment 1

While there is a theoretical debate regarding the relationship between legality and morality (i.e., Sunstein 1996, Cooter 1998, 2000), minimal empirical work has been done to examine how lay people view the relation between these two notions (Blaufus et al., 2016). The purpose of this project is to examine this question empirically, and extend on previous scholarship with the support of empirical data. This study aims to investigate whether the legal status of an act (i.e., illegal vs. not illegal) can influence "wrongness" judgements of that act, as well as moral character judgements of the person enacting it.

We are examining whether people’s perceptions of profit and profit-seeking can be influenced by arguments that construct positive or negative associations with profit in the media. We have created statements that outline the mechanisms through which profit-seeking companies can create either socially beneficial or socially harmful outcomes for a society based on the arguments used by experts and journalists. These statements are aimed to be constructed that people would mostly agree with regardless of their intuitive beliefs about profit-seeking companies. We are studying whether providing participants with profit-related positive statements can reduce negative associations with profit. Alternatively, exposure to negative statements may increase negative associations with profit-seeking.

A study pre-reg

Do people want a big piece of a small pie, or a small piece of a huge pie? Societies differ based on how equally wealth may be distributed over population categories. Rhetoric takes advantage of this with one often cited example being that "1% of the population control X% of a society's wealth". This is often used to compare between societies, for example, one society may have it so that the top 1% of the population controls 45% of the wealth, while in another, the top 1% of the population may control 22%. What these simple comparisons miss however is the total wealth available in both societies. If both countries were equally wealthy overall, one may prefer to the live in the second, more equal society. However, if the more unequal society had an economy 200 times the size of the more equal one, a person might be better off accepting a smaller piece of that much larger pie. We are looking to introduce total economy size as a variable people may use to evaluate which societies they judge to be most desirable.

Experiment examining whether those socially defecting (e.g., behaving immorally towards a close friend) are judged more harshly than those performing the same immoral actions towards strangers.

Examining determinants of when people attribute illness to a vaccine versus to chance

Do people want a big piece of a small pie, or a small piece of a huge pie? Societies differ based on how equally wealth may be distributed over population categories. Rhetoric takes advantage of this with one often cited example being that "1% of the population control X% of a society's wealth". This is often used to compare between societies, for example, one society may have it so that the top 1% of the population controls 45% of the wealth, while in another, the top 1% of the population may control 22%. What these simple comparisons miss however is the total wealth available in both societies. If both countries were equally wealthy overall, one may prefer to the live in the second, more equal society. However, if the more unequal society had an economy 200 times the size of the more equal one, a person might be better off accepting a smaller piece of that much larger pie. We are looking to introduce total economy size as a variable people may use to evaluate which societies they judge to be most desirable.