Large-scale societal issues such as public health crises highlight the need to communicate scientific information, which is often uncertain, accurately to the public and policy makers. The challenge is to communicate the inherent scientific uncertainty — especially about the underlying quality of the evidence — whilst supporting informed decision making. Little is known about the effects that such scientific uncertainty has on people’s judgments of the information. In three experimental studies (total N=6,489), we investigate the influence of scientific uncertainty about the quality of the evidence on people’s perceived trustworthiness of the information and decision making. We compare the provision of high, low, and ambiguous quality-of-evidence indicators against providing no such cues. Results show an asymmetric relationship: people react more strongly to cues of low quality of evidence than they do to high quality of evidence compared to no cue. While responses to a cue of high quality of evidence are not significantly different from no cue; a cue of low or uncertain quality of evidence is accompanied by lower perceived trustworthiness and lower use of the information in decision making. Cues of uncertain quality of evidence have a similar effect to those of low quality. These effects do not change with the addition of a reason for the indicated quality level. Our findings shed light on the effects of the communication of scientific uncertainty on judgment and decision making, and provide insights for evidence-based communications and informed decision making for policy makers and the public.

Misinformation presents a significant societal problem. To measure individuals’ susceptibility to misinformation and study its predictors, researchers have used a broad variety of ad-hoc item sets, scales, question framings, and response modes. Because of this variety, it remains unknown whether results from different studies can be compared (e.g., in meta-analyses). In this preregistered study (US sample; N = 2,622), we compare five commonly used question framings (eliciting perceived headline accuracy, manipulativeness, reliability, trustworthiness, and whether a headline is real or fake) and three response modes (binary, 6-point and 7-point scales), using the psychometrically validated Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST). We test 1) whether different question framings and response modes yield similar responses for the same item set, 2) whether people’s confidence in their primary judgments is affected by question framings and response modes, and 3) which key psychological factors (myside bias, political partisanship, cognitive reflection, and numeracy skills) best predict misinformation susceptibility across assessment methods. Different response modes and question framings yield similar (but not identical) responses for both primary ratings and confidence judgments. We also find a similar nomological net across conditions, suggesting cross-study comparability. Finally, myside bias and political conservatism were strongly positively correlated with misinformation susceptibility, whereas numeracy skills and especially cognitive reflection were less important (although we note potential ceiling effects for numeracy). We thus find more support for an “integrative” account than a “classical reasoning” account of misinformation belief.

In recent years, interest in the psychology of fake news has rapidly increased. We outline the various interventions within psychological science aimed at countering the spread of fake news and misinformation online, focusing primarily on corrective (debunking) and pre-emptive (prebunking) approaches. We also offer a research agenda of open questions within the field of psychological science that relate to how and why fake news spreads and how best to counter it: the longevity of intervention effectiveness; the role of sources and source credibility; whether the sharing of fake news is best explained by the motivated cognition or the inattention accounts; and the complexities of developing psychometrically validated instruments to measure how interventions affect susceptibility to fake news at the individual level.

The Internet is gaining relevance as a platform where extremist organizations seek to recruit new members. For this preregistered study, we developed and tested a novel online game, Radicalise, which aims to combat the effectiveness of online recruitment strategies used by extremist organizations, based on the principles of active psychological inoculation. The game “inoculates” players by exposing them to severely weakened doses of the key techniques and methods used to recruit and radicalize individuals via social media platforms: identifying vulnerable individuals, gaining their trust, isolating them from their community and pressuring them into committing a criminal act in the name of the extremist organization. To test the game's effectiveness, we conducted a preregistered 2 × 2 mixed (pre–post) randomized controlled experiment (n = 291) with two outcome measures. The first measured participants’ ability and confidence in assessing the manipulativeness of fictitious WhatsApp messages making use of an extremist manipulation technique before and after playing. The second measured participants’ ability to identify what factors make an individual vulnerable to extremist recruitment using 10 profile vignettes, also before and after playing. We find that playing Radicalise significantly improves participants’ ability and confidence in spotting manipulative messages and the characteristics associated with vulnerability.

Global climate change is the largest existential threat of our time. Glaciers are retreating, sea levels are rising, extreme weather is intensifying and the last four years have been the hottest on record (NASA, 2020; World Meteorological Organization, 2020). Although climate change is already significantly impacting natural and human systems around the world, mitigating further and potentially disastrous climate change will require large-scale individual and collective action, including public support for mitigation policies, as well as the more rapid development and implementation of adaptation plans (van der Linden et al., 2015; Pearson et al., 2016).

Socially minded nudges are the more sociable cousin of regular nudges: they reveal important information about other people's behavior, raise normative expectations about what is desirable, can be shared and transmitted online or offline and leverage social incentives and sanctions that regulate individual and group behavior. In this article, I argue that many of the most successful nudges – that is, nudges that have been well replicated, offer positive spill-over and whose effects last over time – have in fact been social nudges. Moreover, the efficacy of other nudges can be enhanced by considering the social dimension of the problem that they are trying to address. In asking where behavioral science should go next, I argue that although the Behavioural Insights Team has traditionally shied away from addressing more complex and sticky societal issues, socially situated nudges are particularly well suited to address many of the important challenges raised by Sanders et al. (2018).

Pepper & Nettle overstate cross-domain evidence of present-oriented thinking among lower-socioeconomic-status (SES) groups and overlook key social and contextual drivers of temporal decision making. We consider psychological research on climate change – a quintessential intertemporal problem that implicates inequities and extrinsic mortality risk – documenting more future-oriented thinking among low- compared to high-SES groups.

The psychological processes that predict aggressive behaviour are also typically associated with violent self-harm (e.g., poor self-control). Yet, although human violence (towards others) appears to increase with proximity to the equator, suicide rates tend to decrease. In the light of this empirical puzzle, I argue that Van Lange et al.'s CLASH model would benefit from a broader conceptualization of human aggression.

Unprecedented levels of global bottled water consumption present a major challenge for the environment and water conservation initiatives. Educational institutions are in a unique position to promote conservation behavior by signaling pro-environmental norms. To decrease disposable bottled water consumption on campus, Princeton University instituted an innovative “Drink Local” program in 2009. The program provides reusable water bottles to all incoming students and we analyze the program’s impact here by drawing on behavioral and social influence research. In particular, we hypothesized that by signaling that the desired “prototypical” behavior of Princeton students should be “sustainable,” students would be less likely to consume bottled water on one hand, and more likely to offer normative support for a campus bottled water ban on the other. Results from a quasi-experiment involving over 1,300 students confirm our hypotheses; students who received the reusable Drink Local bottles upon arrival to Princeton are significantly less likely to drink disposable bottled water and more likely to support a campus-wide bottled water ban. These results are promising for educational institutions who wish to promote water conservation behavior on campus and beyond.

Environmental Practice 18: 116–122 (2016)