Literature DB >> 33325331

Citizens Versus the Internet: Confronting Digital Challenges With Cognitive Tools.

Anastasia Kozyreva1, Stephan Lewandowsky2,3, Ralph Hertwig1.   

Abstract

The Internet has evolved into a ubiquitous and indispensable digital environment in which people communicate, seek information, and make decisions. Despite offering various benefits, online environments are also replete with smart, highly adaptive choice architectures designed primarily to maximize commercial interests, capture and sustain users' attention, monetize user data, and predict and influence future behavior. This online landscape holds multiple negative consequences for society, such as a decline in human autonomy, rising incivility in online conversation, the facilitation of political extremism, and the spread of disinformation. Benevolent choice architects working with regulators may curb the worst excesses of manipulative choice architectures, yet the strategic advantages, resources, and data remain with commercial players. One way to address some of this imbalance is with interventions that empower Internet users to gain some control over their digital environments, in part by boosting their information literacy and their cognitive resistance to manipulation. Our goal is to present a conceptual map of interventions that are based on insights from psychological science. We begin by systematically outlining how online and offline environments differ despite being increasingly inextricable. We then identify four major types of challenges that users encounter in online environments: persuasive and manipulative choice architectures, AI-assisted information architectures, false and misleading information, and distracting environments. Next, we turn to how psychological science can inform interventions to counteract these challenges of the digital world. After distinguishing among three types of behavioral and cognitive interventions-nudges, technocognition, and boosts-we focus on boosts, of which we identify two main groups: (a) those aimed at enhancing people's agency in their digital environments (e.g., self-nudging, deliberate ignorance) and (b) those aimed at boosting competencies of reasoning and resilience to manipulation (e.g., simple decision aids, inoculation). These cognitive tools are designed to foster the civility of online discourse and protect reason and human autonomy against manipulative choice architectures, attention-grabbing techniques, and the spread of false information.

Entities:  

Keywords:  attention economy; behavioral policy; boosting; choice architecture; cognitive tools; decision aids; disinformation; false news; media literacy; nudging

Year:  2020        PMID: 33325331      PMCID: PMC7745618          DOI: 10.1177/1529100620946707

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest        ISSN: 1529-1006


  79 in total

1.  Medicine. Do defaults save lives?

Authors:  Eric J Johnson; Daniel Goldstein
Journal:  Science       Date:  2003-11-21       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Political science. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook.

Authors:  Eytan Bakshy; Solomon Messing; Lada A Adamic
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-05-07       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing.

Authors:  Stephan Lewandowsky; Ullrich K H Ecker; Colleen M Seifert; Norbert Schwarz; John Cook
Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest       Date:  2012-12

4.  Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans.

Authors:  Wu Youyou; Michal Kosinski; David Stillwell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 5.  Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Good Decisions.

Authors:  Ralph Hertwig; Till Grüne-Yanoff
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-08-09

6.  Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior.

Authors:  Michal Kosinski; David Stillwell; Thore Graepel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence.

Authors:  John Cook; Stephan Lewandowsky; Ullrich K H Ecker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Accelerating dynamics of collective attention.

Authors:  Philipp Lorenz-Spreen; Bjarke Mørch Mønsted; Philipp Hövel; Sune Lehmann
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; David G Rand
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem.

Authors:  Jennifer Allen; Baird Howland; Markus Mobius; David Rothschild; Duncan J Watts
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2020-04-03       Impact factor: 14.136

View more
  10 in total

1.  Who Will Help to Strive Against the "Infodemic"? Reciprocity Norms Enforce the Information Sharing Accuracy of the Individuals.

Authors:  Kehan Li; Weiwei Xiao
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-06-30

2.  Understanding the dynamics emerging from infodemics: a call to action for interdisciplinary research.

Authors:  Stephan Leitner; Bartosz Gula; Dietmar Jannach; Ulrike Krieg-Holz; Friederike Wall
Journal:  SN Bus Econ       Date:  2021-01-11

Review 3.  Critical Thinking: A Model of Intelligence for Solving Real-World Problems.

Authors:  Diane F Halpern; Dana S Dunn
Journal:  J Intell       Date:  2021-04-07

4.  The Challenge of Debunking Health Misinformation in Dynamic Social Media Conversations: Online Randomized Study of Public Masking During COVID-19.

Authors:  Mehdi Mourali; Carly Drake
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 7.076

5.  A digital media literacy intervention for older adults improves resilience to fake news.

Authors:  Ryan C Moore; Jeffrey T Hancock
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Teachers' views on disinformation and media literacy supported by a tool designed for professional fact-checkers: perspectives from France, Romania, Spain and Sweden.

Authors:  Thomas Nygren; Divina Frau-Meigs; Nicoleta Corbu; Sonia Santoveña-Casal
Journal:  SN Soc Sci       Date:  2022-04-09

7.  Lateral reading and monetary incentives to spot disinformation about science.

Authors:  Folco Panizza; Piero Ronzani; Carlo Martini; Simone Mattavelli; Tiffany Morisseau; Matteo Motterlini
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Nudging Social Media toward Accuracy.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; David G Rand
Journal:  Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci       Date:  2022-05-05

9.  Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation.

Authors:  Gordon Pennycook; David G Rand
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 17.694

10.  Does explaining the origins of misinformation improve the effectiveness of a given correction?

Authors:  Saoirse Connor Desai; Stian Reimers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-09-20
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.