People believe misinformation is a threat because they assume others are gullible

Altay, S., & Acerbi, A. (2023).

New Media & Society, 0(0).

https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231153379

Abstract

Alarmist narratives about the flow of misinformation and its negative consequences have gained traction in recent years. If these fears are to some extent warranted, the scientific literature suggests that many of them are exaggerated. Why are people so worried about misinformation? In two pre-registered surveys conducted in the United Kingdom (Nstudy_1 = 300, Nstudy_2 = 300) and replicated in the United States (Nstudy_1 = 302, Nstudy_2 = 299), we investigated the psychological factors associated with perceived danger of misinformation and how it contributes to the popularity of alarmist narratives on misinformation. We find that the strongest, and most reliable, predictor of perceived danger of misinformation is the third-person effect (i.e. the perception that others are more vulnerable to misinformation than the self) and, in particular, the belief that “distant” others (as opposed to family and friends) are vulnerable to misinformation. The belief that societal problems have simple solutions and clear causes was consistently, but weakly, associated with perceived danger of online misinformation. Other factors, like negative attitudes toward new technologies and higher sensitivity to threats, were inconsistently, and weakly, associated with perceived danger of online misinformation. Finally, we found that participants who report being more worried about misinformation are more willing to like and share alarmist narratives on misinformation. Our findings suggest that fears about misinformation tap into our tendency to view other people as gullible.

My thoughts:

The authors conducted a study in the United Kingdom. They found that people who believed that others were more gullible than themselves were also more likely to perceive misinformation as a threat. This relationship was independent of other factors such as people's political beliefs, media consumption habits, and trust in institutions.

The authors argue that this finding suggests that people's concerns about misinformation may be rooted in their own biases about the intelligence and critical thinking skills of others. They also suggest that this bias may make people more likely to share and spread misinformation themselves.

The authors conclude by calling for more research on the role of bias in people's perceptions of misinformation. They also suggest that interventions to reduce misinformation should address people's biases about the gullibility of others.

One implication of this research is that people who are concerned about misinformation should be mindful of their own biases. It is important to remember that everyone is vulnerable to misinformation, regardless of their intelligence or education level. We should all be critical of the information we encounter online and be careful about sharing things that we are not sure are true.

Obama to Unveil Initiative to Map the Human Brain

By JOHN MARKOFF and JAMES GORMAN
The New York Times
Published: April 2, 2013

President Obama on Tuesday will announce a broad new research initiative, starting with $100 million in 2014, to invent and refine new technologies to understand the human brain, senior administration officials said Monday.

A senior administration scientist compared the new initiative to the Human Genome Project, in that it is directed at a problem that has seemed insoluble up to now: the recording and mapping of brain circuits in action in an effort to “show how millions of brain cells interact.”

It is different, however, in that it has, as yet, no clearly defined goals or endpoint. Coming up with those goals will be up to the scientists involved and may take more than year.

The effort will require the development of new tools not yet available to neuroscientists and, eventually, perhaps lead to progress in treating diseases like Alzheimer’s and epilepsy and traumatic brain injury. It will involve both government agencies and private institutions.

The entire story is here.

How Does Technology Affect Business Ethics?

By Hans Fredrick
azcentral.com

The more integrated a piece of technology becomes into the way we do business, the more the potential ethical conundrums posed by that technology become apparent. Ethical business practices need to grow and evolve in step with technology. While new devices and advances may make the day-to-day operations of running a business easier, they also create challenges that the ethical businessperson must contend with.

Privacy

Privacy has become a much larger concern in the modern technological age. Business ethicists are still learning and debating how much privacy people are entitled to in the digital age, as are lawmakers. For instance, many employers had taken to the practice of requiring potential employees to provide them with the password to their Facebook pages. This opened up the door to potential privacy issues, not to mention discriminatory hiring practices. In 2012, a law was passed in California to prohibit this particular breach of privacy; but in some jurisdictions, the decision whether or not to ask for this information is still an ethical, rather than a legal matter.

The entire story is here.

Ethics in the age of acceleration

By Vivek Wadhwa
The Washington Post
Originally posted July 13, 2013

Here are some excerpts:

Advances in technology are changing who we are and what we are. Today’s bio-engineered devices and exoskeletons are just a start. Over time, they will become larger components of our bodies, playing more critical roles. As the Glenn case on human-machine mergers shows, modern-day business practices lack an understanding of changes in technology.

But this is the tip of the iceberg. Preeta Bansal says that law and ethics, too, lag behind advances in technology. Bansal is the former White House general counsel and senior policy Advisor and prior to that served as Solicitor General of the state of New York. For example, she asks, how will existing rules of liability be applied when a self-driving car, such as the autonomous vehicle Google is designing, hits a pedestrian? Will robotic devices with attributes of human sentience be subject to criminal laws – either as victims or perpetrators? To what extent will individuals have the right to control the collection, maintenance, dissemination, and accessibility of private information?

The entire story is here.

Mobile medical apps & FDA regulation

The Growth of the Health IT Sector and the Need for More Robust FDA Regulation

By Adam
Nurep
Originally posted on December 21, 2012


Over the last six years, there has been significant growth in the health technology sector (e.g. mobile medical apps), driven by advances in technology and an increase in venture capital (VC) funding. VCs have been lured into the space due to the perception of high returns on investment within shorter timeframes versus their traditional life science funds. The significant growth in this market has driven the need for increased scrutiny from the FDA in how these products should be regulated.

The FDA has the authority to regulate software if it falls within the broad definition of a “device”. It has further segmented medical devices into three classes; Class I, Class II and Class III. Class I devices don’t require FDA regulatory filing (i.e., 510(K), Premarket Approval Application (PMA)) whereas Class II requires 510(K) and Class III devices require a PMA. The class to which a device is assigned determines the type of premarketing submission/application required for FDA clearance, prior to product launch.

While the FDA has had policies in place for many years regarding the regulation of software/computer products, it has historically taken the position not to enforce the regulation unless the product interfaces directly with a medical device. In cases such as these, products have then been subjected to regulation as if they were a medical device. This caused problems for the manufacturers of these devices as there was no structured classification system based on a risk assessment, making it difficult to predict whether a device would end up being a Class I, II or III medical device. Furthermore, the rapid adoption of mobile technology within healthcare meant that there was a pressing need to develop specific guidelines around the regulation of these products also (out of the 14,558 medical apps currently available, only 75 have received clearance from the FDA).

The entire article is here.

ONC advancing Blue Button, CDS standards efforts

Automating the Blue Button to Exchange PHI

Mary Mosquera
Senior Editor, Government Health IT
Originally published on September 26, 2012

Developers in an ONC voluntary community are beginning to drill down into what will be required to automate the Blue Button feature to exchange patient health information at the consumer’s request under different scenarios.

The Blue Button enables patients to view and download their information in simple text format and is currently available to veterans, military service members and Medicare beneficiaries. A few private sector health organizations have begun to make it available to their members.

The ONC’s Standards & Interoperability Framework community has just created three panels to identify standards and tools to push personal data to a specific location, such as using Direct secure messaging protocols and the Consolidated Clinical Document Architecture (CDA), and allowing a third-party application to access personal health data on demand, in a pull transmission, according to Doug Fridsma, MD, director of ONC’s Office of Standards and Interoperability and acting chief scientist.

The entire story is here.

New generation of virtual humans helping to train psychologists

American Psychological Association Press Release
Originally published August 3, 2012

New technology has led to the creation of virtual humans who can interact with therapists via a computer screen and realistically mimic the symptoms of a patient with clinical psychological disorders, according to new research presented at the American Psychological Association’s 120^th Annual Convention.

“As this technology continues to improve, it will have a significant impact on how clinical training is conducted in psychology and medicine,” said psychologist and virtual reality technology expert Albert “Skip” Rizzo, PhD, who demonstrated recent advancements in virtual reality for use in psychology.

Virtual humans can now be highly interactive, artificially intelligent and capable of carrying on a conversation with real humans, according to Rizzo, a research scientist at the University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies. “This has set the stage for the ‘birth’ of intelligent virtual humans to be used in clinical training settings,” he said.

Rizzo showed videos of clinical psychiatry trainees engaging with virtual patients called “Justin” and “Justina.” Justin is a 16-year-old with a conduct disorder who is being forced by his family to participate in therapy. Justina, the second and more advanced iteration of this technology, is a sexual assault victim who was designed to have symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

The entire press release is here.

The Flight From Conversation

By Sherry Turkle
The New York Times - Opinion
The Sunday Review
Originally published April 21, 2012

WE live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection.

At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can be done.

Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and talked to hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in lives. I’ve learned that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only what we do, but also who we are.

We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. We have gotten used to the idea of being in a tribe of one, loyal to our own party.

The entire is here.

Thanks to Lou Moskowitz for this story.

This story has implications for face-to-face psychotherapy as well as online therapy.

Health industry lacks patient data safeguards: poll

by Alina Selyukh

(Reuters) - New technologies are flooding into the healthcare world, but the industry is not adequately prepared to protect patients from data breaches, according to a report published on Thursday.

A vast majority of hospitals, doctors, pharmacies and insurers are eager to adapt to increasingly digital patient data. However, less than half are addressing implications for privacy and security, a survey of healthcare industry executives by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP found.

The original article is here.