Search

Item does not contain fulltext How well can social scientists predict societal change, and what processes underlie their predictions? To answer these questions, we ran two forecasting tournaments testing the accuracy of predictions of societal change in domains commonly studied in the social sciences: ideological preferences, political polarization, life satisfaction, sentiment on social media, and gender–career and racial bias. After we provided them with historical trend data on the relevant domain, social scientists submitted pre-registered monthly forecasts for a year (Tournament 1; N = 86 teams and 359 forecasts), with an opportunity to update forecasts on the basis of new data six months later (Tournament 2; N = 120 teams and 546 forecasts). Benchmarking forecasting accuracy revealed that social scientists' forecasts were on average no more accurate than those of simple statistical models (historical means, random walks or linear regressions) or the aggregate forecasts of a sample from the general public (N = 802). However, scientists were more accurate if they had scientific expertise in a prediction domain, were interdisciplinary, used simpler models and based predictions on prior data. 18 p.

The Keats heuristic suggests that people find aesthetically pleasing expressions more accurate than mundane expressions. We test this notion with chiastic statements. Chiasmus is a stylistic phenomenon in which at least two linguistic constituents are repeated in reverse order, conventionally represented by the formula A-B-B-A. Our study focuses on the specific form of chiasmus known as antimetabole, in which the reverse-repeated constituents are words (e.g., “All for one and one for all;” A = all, B = one). In 3 out of 4 experiments (N = 797), we find evidence that people judge antimetabolic statements (e.g., “Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.”) as more accurate than semantically equivalent non-antimetabolic statements (e.g., “Success is getting what you wish. Happiness is wanting what you receive.”). Furthermore, we evaluate fluency as a potential mechanism explaining the observed accuracy benefit afforded to antimetabolic statements, finding that the increased speed (i.e., fluency) with which antimetabolic statements were processed predicted judgements of accuracy. Overall, the current work is consistent with the growing literature on stylistic factors biasing assessments of truth, using the distinctive stylistic pattern of antimetabole.

We examine whether the goal of making reasonable decisions would result in similar rejection rates to the goal of making rational decisions. Since the perception of reasonableness is related to taking into account local circumstances, social norms, as well as ethical and emotional considerations, whereas the perception of rationality is related to an analytical, un-emotional, self-interest considerations (Grossmann et al., 2019), we expect that participants that are asked to be reasonable will reject unfair offers (under 30% of the endowment) more than participants asked to be rational.

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.

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon, is the tendency for people to perceive that they accurately predicted an event before it happened. The current study will examine how hindsight bias varies as a function of age (younger vs. older adults) and emotional valence (i.e., positive and negative emotions). We will consider two contexts marked by different levels of ecological validity and emotional intensity: the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, and general knowledge for subject matter varying in emotional tone. Younger and older adults will be asked to predict who will win the election, and to guess the answers to 30 general knowledge questions pre-selected to be emotionally positive, neutral, or negative. Participants will complete questionnaires assessing their political affiliation, feelings about the election, partisanship, demographics, and health. We expect that older adults will be more susceptible to hindsight bias. We will also explore whether emotional quality of the election result and of general-knowledge questions will moderate the degree of hindsight bias in the two age groups.

This is a 3-wave study examining participants' abstract and concrete thoughts about different real-life events. We use a new scale of abstract and concrete thinking. We examine the association between abstract thoughts, concrete thoughts, and wise reasoning.

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.

Examining how reflecting on meaningless information can enhance meaning

Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon, is the tendency for people to perceive that they accurately predicted an event before it happened. The current study will examine how hindsight bias varies as a function of age (younger vs. older adults) and emotional valence (positive vs. negative vs. neutral). Younger and older adults will be asked to guess the answers to 60 general knowledge questions pre-selected to be emotionally positive, neutral, or negative. Participants will complete questionnaires assessing their positive and negative affect, vocabulary, demographics, and health. We expect that older adults will be more susceptible to hindsight bias. We will also explore whether emotional quality of general-knowledge questions will moderate the degree of hindsight bias in the two age groups.

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.

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-evp-10.1177_14747049211000317 for Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of Intelligence by Martin Harry Turpin, Mane Kara-Yakoubian, Alexander C. Walker, Heather E. K. Walker, Jonathan A. Fugelsang and Jennifer A. Stolz in Evolutionary Psychology

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-evp-10.1177_14747049211000317 for Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of Intelligence by Martin Harry Turpin, Mane Kara-Yakoubian, Alexander C. Walker, Heather E. K. Walker, Jonathan A. Fugelsang and Jennifer A. Stolz in Evolutionary Psychology

The Keats heuristic suggests that people find aesthetically pleasing expressions more accurate than mundane expressions. We test this notion with antimetabolic statements. Antimetabole is a stylistic phenomenon in which at least two words are repeated in reverse order, following an A-B-B-A pattern (e.g., “all for one and one for all”). Across four studies (N = 797), we show that antimetabolic statements (e.g., “Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get.”) are judged as more accurate than semantically equivalent non-antimetabolic statements (e.g., “Success is getting what you wish. Happiness is wanting what you receive.”). Furthermore, we evaluate fluency as a potential mechanism explaining the observed accuracy benefit afforded to antimetabolic statements. To this end, we find that antimetabolic statements are perceived as more aesthetically pleasing and elicit quicker accuracy judgments compared to non-antimetabolic statements. Nevertheless, accuracy judgment response times and aesthetic preferences failed to correlate with judgments of accuracy, casting doubt on fluency as the mechanism driving the accuracy benefit afforded to antimetabolic statements. Overall, the current work demonstrates how stylistic factors bias assessments of truth, with information communicated using aesthetically pleasing stylistic devices (e.g., antimetabole) being perceived as more truthful.

The ability to navigate social systems efficiently is critical to our species. Humans appear endowed with a cognitive system that has at least partially formed to best meet the unique cognitive challenges that emerge in a highly social species. Bullshitting, a style of communication characterised by an intent to be convincing or impressive without concern for the truth, is ubiquitous within human societies. Across two studies (N = 1,017), we assess whether participants’ ability to produce satisfying and seemingly accurate bullshit (i.e., explanations of fake concepts) acts as an honest signal of their intelligence. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that bullshit ability is predictive of participants’ intelligence and individuals capable of producing more satisfying bullshit are judged by second-hand observers to be higher in intelligence. We interpret these results as adding further evidence for human intelligence being naturally geared towards the efficient navigation of social systems. The ability to produce satisfying bullshit may serve to assist individuals in negotiating their social world, both as an energetically efficient strategy for impressing others and as an honest signal of one’s intelligence.