Recently, van der Stigchel and colleagues posted a provocative commentary suggesting that we should be wary of bots in online behavioral data collection (🧵by @cstrauch.bsky.social here: bsky.app/profile/cstr...). But should we? Here is my response letter osf.io/preprints/ps.... 1/5
We're looking for a PhD student working on the (mis)perception of social norms in social networks (in collaboration with Vincent Buskens at Utrecht University). Deadline: April 1, 2026. More information here: socion-program.org/vacancy/phd-...
Check out this recent @nature.com paper reporting a field experiment on X. It shows X's algorithm boosts conservative content and downranks traditional media—shifting users’ views on key issues. Switching to chronological doesn’t reverse the effect. www.nature.com/articles/s41...
What do laypeople think causes conspiracy beliefs? New research suggests that people tend to attribute these beliefs most strongly to influence from social media and misinformation.
Read more in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin: https://ow.ly/HSrZ50YioS5
Despite all the chatter, social media bans for teens lack evidence! New paper out in Nature Health.
(1) Harms from social media are real & serious.
(2) We need regulatory action but bans are not nuanced, do not empower youth, & are not supported by evidence.
www.nature.com/articles/s44...
Additional highlights:
- General recommendations for assessing lay attributions to dispositional and situational/social causes
- Recommendations for how these insights could be used to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories
5/5
The paper is also worth reading if you are interested in:
- Laypeople’s perceptions of conspiracy believers (see our qualitative study)
- How attributions of conspiracy beliefs to dispositional causes, social media, and misinformation are related in people’s minds
4/5
How are attributions of conspiracy beliefs related to intentions to correct conspiracy believers?
- People who attributed conspiracy beliefs more strongly to influence from social media and misinformation (but not any other cause) were more willing to correct conspiracy believers
3/5
The short answer to what laypeople think causes conspiracy beliefs:
- Conspiracy beliefs are attributed more strongly to dispositional than situational causes, with two exceptions:
- Laypeople attributed conspiracy beliefs most strongly to 1) influence from social media and 2) misinformation
2/5
What do laypeople think causes conspiracy beliefs?
We (@kaiepstude.bsky.social, Bob Fennis, and I) look at this and other questions in a new PSPB paper combining six correlational studies and a qualitative one.
Read the open-access paper here: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
A 🧵
1/5
If you are interested in our recent paper on how counterfactual thinking can reduce engagement with conspiracy theories but don't have the time to read it; here is a short summary of our main findings:
www.psychreg.org/thinking-wha...
A new paper by George Borjas—who served this past year in the Trump White House designing some of its anti-immigration policies—claims to display evidence of ideological bias among researchers who study immigration.
doi.org/10.1126/scia...
🧵 Thread—>
Are leaders blamed for disasters that eventually did not occur? The answer points to the crucial impact of partisanship in assigning blame for events that almost happened. @jexpsocpsych.bsky.social w/ Matejas Mackin, @danieleffron.bsky.social, and Neal Roese
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
Motivated reasoning is a well-understood phenomenon - or is it?
In a new paper just published at @collabrapsychology.bsky.social we discuss three known unknowns.
doi.org/10.1525/coll...
Here is a 🧵
screenshot of my post
Big new blogpost!
My guide to data visualization, which includes a very long table of contents, tons of charts, and more.
--> Why data visualization matters and how to make charts more effective, clear, transparent, and sometimes, beautiful.
www.scientificdiscovery.dev/p/salonis-gu...
Edit: The 2nd point in post 5 should read "Is positively (vs. not significantly) associated with reading times for conspiracy (vs. non-conspiracy) articles"
More research is certainly needed before using counterfactual thinking to tackle conspiracy theories in the field, but our paper provides a promising first step.
Again, if you want to know more, read the paper here: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
n/n
We also find that high conspiracy mentality:
- Makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines)
- Reduces reading times for conspiracy articles (but not non-conspiracy articles)
- Does not change the effects of counterfactual thinking manipulations
5/n
3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles
4/n
Key findings:
1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.
2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.
3/n
If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
Below is a summary of the most important findings.
2/n
Screenshot of the abstract for the article "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole: Counterfactual thinking reduces engagement with conspiracy theories" in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
New paper out in @jexpsocpsych.bsky.social !
We (@kwinter.bsky.social, @kaiepstude.bsky.social , Bob Fennis and I) found that encouraging counterfactual thinking reduces engagement with conspiracy theories (i.e., clicks on, and reading times for, conspiracy articles).
A 🧵
1/n
More research is certainly needed before using counterfactual thinking to tackle conspiracy theories in the field, but our paper provides a promising first step.
Again, read the paper here if you want to know more: authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
n/n
We also find that high conspiracy mentality:
- Makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines)
- Reduces reading times for conspiracy articles (but not non-conspiracy articles)
- Does not shape the effects of counterfactual thinking manipulations
5/n
3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles
4/n
Key findings:
1) Encouraging counterfactual thinking about conspiracy beliefs (e.g., "If only I had not fallen down the rabbit hole ...") makes people consider opposing viewpoints and reflect on their views on conspiracy theories.
2) Reading counterfactuals does not reduce conspiracy beliefs.
3/n
If you are interested in conspiracy beliefs (and how to fight them), counterfactual thinking, or selective exposure (i.e., people's preference for information confirming their views), read the paper here:
authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S...
Below is a summary of the most important findings.
2/n
While more research is needed before using counterfactual thinking in the field, our findings offer a promising first step toward reducing conspiracy engagement.
n/n
We also find that being drawn to conspiracy theories (i.e., high conspiracy mentality) makes people click on fewer non-conspiracy headlines (but not more conspiracy headlines) and spend more time reading conspiracy articles (but not less time reading non-conspiracy articles).
5/n
3) Reading counterfactuals reduces engagement with conspiracy theories:
- It reverses people's default preference for conspiracy over non-conspiracy articles (in terms of clicks and reading times)
- It makes people spend less time reading conspiracy (but not non-conspiracy) articles
4/n
