Search

It is now commonplace to hear that addressing the grand challenges of today’s society – climate change, obesity, ageing populations, pandemics – requires substantial changes in individuals’ behaviour (e.g., Newell & Moss, 2021). This call to arms places cognitive and behavioral science at the forefront of understanding how such widespread change can be achieved. Answering that call has led many researchers to make bold claims for the potential of simple techniques that facilitate positive behaviour change without impinging on people’s freedom of choice (e.g., Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). These techniques, collectively and colloquially known as ‘nudges’ capitalize on promoting ‘desirable’ options by making changes to the choice architectures (physical, social and psychological) in which decisions are made.

Exploration and Exploitation represent two mutually exclusive goals associated with choices within an environment:search too little and the lack of information will make it difficult to distinguish good options penalizing the agent inthe long run (exploiting) or search too much and suffer sub-optimal performance in the short term (exploring). Striking abalance between exploiting and exploring requires the learner to behave optimally in different environments. Managingthis trade-off is an important process of our lives but isnt completely understood from a cognitive science perspective. Tothis end we present the findings from an experiment where the main objective was to examine how much the presence ofcompetition and threats affects both behaviors: the presence of competition directs greater exploration and the presenceof threats reduces this behavior, suggesting that learners prioritize their learning behavior in response to the presence ofdifferent types of agents in the environment.

Standard self-monitoring devices provide real-time daily feedback. This may not help users learn the long-term futurecumulative effects of their behaviour because it orientates attention on the now. We test the hypothesis that future orientedfeedback is more effective than real-time feedback in increasing users propensity to exercise. We asked 54 female treadmillusers in a gym to report the feedback they got from the machine (calories burnt, time spent running and distance covered)upon finishing their workout and were then provided with additional feedback which varied in format across three between-subject conditions: day only feedback (no additional feedback), monthly feedback (additional projection of the futurecumulative effect of the activity repeated daily after one month), and all times feedback (additional projection of the futurecumulative effect of the activity repeated daily after one month and after one year). All participants were then asked aboutthe extent to which they felt their own running workout affected their weight loss, as well the extent to which runningleads to weight loss in general. They also all answered two questions aimed at measuring their time perspective afterbeing exposed to the various feedbacks. In comparison to participants who had been exposed to the standard real timefeedback, participants who had been exposed to the future oriented feedbacks perceived the causal connection betweentheir own running workout and their weight loss as significantly higher, and reported a significantly more future orientedtime perspective. The results highlight the need to consider time orientation as an important dimension to aid decisionsthrough technologies.

Concerns around the definition of misinformation hamper ways of addressing purported problems associated with it, along with the fact that public understanding of the concept is often ignored. To this end, the present pilot survey study examines three broad issues, as follows: (1) contexts where the concept most applies to (i.e., face-to-face interactions, social media, news media, or all three contexts), (2) criteria people use to identify misinformation, and (3) motivations for sharing it. A total of 1897 participants (approximately 300 per country) from six different countries (Chile, Germany, Greece, Mexico, the UK, the USA) were asked questions on all three, along with an option to provide free text responses for two of them. The quantitative and qualitative findings reveal a nuanced understanding of the concept, with the common defining characteristics being claims presented as fact when they are opinion (71%), claims challenged by experts (66%), and claims that are unqualified by evidence (64%). Moreover, of the 28% (n = 538) of participants providing free text responses further qualifying criteria for misinformation, 31% of them mentioned critical details from communication (e.g., concealing relevant details or lacking evidence to support claims), and 41% mentioned additions in communication that reveal distortions (e.g., sensationalist language, exaggerating claims). Rather than being exclusive to social media, misinformation was seen by the full sample (n = 1897) as present in all communication contexts (59%) and is shared for amusement (50%) or inadvertently (56%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The target article 'Risk communication, uncertainty and the Dutch energy transition' outlines a comprehensive list of major and minor recommendations that the Dutch Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy could follow. The aim of this commentary is to consider another aspect of risk communication that is often overlooked, the communication of risk amongst expert groups. Not only is there a need to carefully consider strategies, such as those mentioned in the target article regarding communicating risks to different publics, but also the ways risk is communicated amongst experts so as to inform successful policy decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The target article 'Risk analysis, uncertainty and innovation: what does this mean for the Dutch energy transition?' sets out some broad factors (e.g. uncertainty, risk tolerance) that should inform public policy making on energy transition, and in particular the Dutch Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Policy. This commentary further clarifies and expands on them by answering: (1) Why is the concept of uncertainty of value in risk analysis? (2) What benefit is there to integrating risk tolerance in risk management and policy decisions? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: In the context of high‐risk surgery, shared decision‐making (SDM) is important. However, the effectiveness of SDM can be hindered by misalignment between patients and clinicians in their expectations of postoperative outcomes. This study investigated the extent and the effects of this misalignment, as well as its amenability to interventions that encourage perspective‐taking. Method: Lay participants with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of ≥4 (representing patients) and surgeons and anaesthetists (representing doctors) were recruited. During an online experiment, subjects in both groups forecast their expectations regarding short‐term (0, 1 and 3 months after treatment) and long‐term (6, 9 and 12 months after treatment) outcomes of different treatment options for one of three hypothetical clinical scenarios – ischaemic heart disease, colorectal cancer or osteoarthritis of the hip – and then chose between surgical or non‐surgical treatment. Subjects in both groups were asked to consider the scenarios from their own perspective (Estimation task), and then to adopt the perspective of subjects in the other study group (Perspective task). The decisions of all participants (surgery vs. non‐surgical alternative) were analysed using binomial generalized linear mixed models. Results: In total, 55 lay participants and 54 doctors completed the online experiment. Systematic misalignment in expectations between high‐risk patients and doctors was observed, with patients expecting better surgical outcomes than clinicians. Patients forecast a significantly higher likelihood of engaging in normal activities in the long term (β = −1.09, standard error [SE] = 0.20, t = −5.38, p < 0.001), a lower likelihood of experiencing complications in the long term (β = 0.92, SE = 0.21, t = 4.45, p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of experiencing depression in both the short term and the long term (β = 1.01, SE = 0.19, t = 5.38, p < 0.001), than did doctors. Compared with doctors, patients forecast higher estimates of experiencing complications in the short term when a non‐surgical alternative was selected (β = −0.91, SE = 0.26, t = −3.50, p = 0.003). Despite this misalignment, in both groups surgical treatment was strongly preferred (estimation task: 88.7% of doctors and 80% of patients; perspective task: 82.2% of doctors and 90.1% of patients). Conclusion: When high‐risk surgery is discussed, a non‐surgical option may be viewed as 'doing nothing', hence reducing the sense of agency and control. This biases the decision‐making process, regardless of the expectations that doctors and patients might have about the outcomes of surgery. Therefore, to improve SDM and to increase the agency and control of patients regarding decisions about their care, we advocate framing the non‐surgical treatment options in a way that emphasizes action, agency and change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the last decade there has been a proliferation of research on misinformation. One important aspect of this work that receives less attention than it should is exactly why misinformation is a problem. To adequately address this question, we must first look to its speculated causes and effects. We examined different disciplines (computer science, economics, history, information science, journalism, law, media, politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology) that investigate misinformation. The consensus view points to advancements in information technology (e.g., the Internet, social media) as a main cause of the proliferation and increasing impact of misinformation, with a variety of illustrations of the effects. We critically analyzed both issues. As to the effects, misbehaviors are not yet reliably demonstrated empirically to be the outcome of misinformation; correlation as causation may have a hand in that perception. As to the cause, advancements in information technologies enable, as well as reveal, multitudes of interactions that represent significant deviations from ground truths through people's new way of knowing (intersubjectivity). This, we argue, is illusionary when understood in light of historical epistemology. Both doubts we raise are used to consider the cost to established norms of liberal democracy that come from efforts to target the problem of misinformation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]