user avatar
David G. Rand @dgrand.bsky.social
@DG_Rand
Prof @cornell - I'm more active on BlueSky at @dgrand.bsky.social
Ithaca, NY
Joined June 2012
Posts
  • Pinned
    user avatar
    🚨 New in Nature+Science!🚨 AI chatbots can shift voter attitudes on candidates & policies, often by 10+pp 🔹Exps in US Canada Poland & UK 🔹More “facts”→more persuasion (not psych tricks) 🔹Increasing persuasiveness reduces "fact" accuracy 🔹Right-leaning bots=more inaccurate
  • user avatar
    🚨Out now in Nature!🚨 A fundamentally new way of fighting misinfo online: Surveys+field exp w >5k Twitter users show that gently nudging users to think about accuracy increases quality of news shared- bc most users dont share misinfo on purpose nature.com/articles/s4158… 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨New WP🚨 Many people - from Trump to @elonmusk - have accused Twitter of anti-conservative bias Is this accusation accurate? We test for evidence of such a bias empirically - and turns out it's more complicated than you might think... psyarxiv.com/ay9q5 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨Working paper alert!🚨 "Understanding and reducing the spread of misinformation online" We introduce a behavioral intervention (accuracy salience) & show in surveys+field exp w >5k Twitter users that it increases quality of news sharing psyarxiv.com/3n9u8 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨WP🚨 Conspiracy beliefs famously resist correction, right? WRONG: We show brief convos w GPT4 reduce conspiracy beliefs by ~20pp (d~1)! 🡆Tailored AI evidence rebut specific arguments offered by believers 🡆Effect lasts 2+mo 🡆Works on entrenched beliefs osf.io/preprints/psya…
  • user avatar
    🚨Out in Nature!🚨 Many (eg Trump JimJordan @elonmusk) have accused social media of anti-conservative bias Is this accurate? We test empirically - and it's more complicated than you might think: conservatives ARE suspended more, but also share more misinfo nature.com/articles/s4158…
  • user avatar
    🚨Out in Science!🚨 Conspiracy beliefs famously resist correction, ya? WRONG: We show brief convos w GPT4 reduce conspiracy beliefs by ~20%! -Lasts over 2mo -Works on entrenched beliefs -Tailored AI response rebuts specific evidence offered by believers science.org/doi/10.1126/sc… 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨New working paper!🚨 "Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention" We test if an intervention we developed for political fake news works for #COVID19- seems like YES! PDF: psyarxiv.com/uhbk9/ 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨Out in PNAS!🚨 Political microtargeting has caused great concern (eg Cambridge Analytica) But does it actually WORK? To find out we quantified the persuasive advantage of political microtargeting for US issue advocacy The answer is complicated... 1/ pnas.org/eprint/AWU8WZ9…
  • user avatar
    🚨Out in @NatureHumBehav🚨 We examine psychology of misinformation across 16 countries, N=34k ➤Consistent cognitive, social & ideological predictors of misinfo belief ➤Interventions (accuracy prompts, diglit tips, crowdsourcing) all broadly effective nature.com/articles/s4156… 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨WP:Examining psychology of misinformation around the globe🚨 Across 16 countries N=34k ➤Strong regularities in cognitive, social & ideological predictors of misinfo belief ➤Broad intervention efficacy (accuracy prompts, literacy tips, crowdsourcing) psyarxiv.com/a9frz 1/
  • user avatar
    🚨Accuracy Prompt Meta-Thread🚨 Weve proposed that prompting people to think about accuracy reduces misinfo sharing. But is this effect replicable & robust? @GordPennycook & I analyzed 20 exps, N=26k Answer: resounding YES, across many headlines/prompts nature.com/articles/s4146… 1/
  • user avatar
    Replying to @DG_Rand
    KEY TAKEHOME: So even though Reps were 4.6x more likely to get suspended by Twitter than Dems, this does NOT provide evidence of partisan bias. It could simply be the result of suspending people for sharing misinformation-which has bipartisan support!
  • user avatar
    Replying to @DG_Rand
    Even more than in past work, the Republicans shared links from MUCH lower quality news sources than Democrats - with source quality judged either by fact-checkers or a politically balanced set of laypeople (heading off claims of bias in the evaluation of what counts as misinfo)