Here it is: osf.io/preprints/ps.... Thanks for reading

@rorchinik.bsky.social fit three fascinating papers on adaptation to environments with varying levels of misinformation on one poster. If the QR codes don't work, go to his website: www.reedorchinik.com/research @rbhui.bsky.social @dgrand.bsky.social @cameronmartel.bsky.social #cfcfc 4/10

Thanks so much! I really appreciate it. I'll follow up over email

Thanks, Olivier! Looking forward to any further feedback & thanks for the papers.

I really like the clickbait paper - will definitely engage with it in our paper! The 2nd was 1 of the papers that got me to start thinking about Bayesian explanations. I’ve really appreciated your work in the area.

@dgrand.bsky.social @rbhui.bsky.social

Thanks for reading! Comments very much welcome.

As always, huge thanks to my awesome coauthors and advisors @DG_Rand & @RaBhui

Link to paper: osf.io/preprints/ps...
14/14

So what? Ppl’s beliefs may not be as fallible as we think. Ppl efficiently use info & can limit the harm of “biases” to avoid falling for misinfo, propaganda, & political persuasion (see thread).

Another thread from the old site: x.com/ROrchinik/st... 13/

The illusory truth effect appears to be an adaptation to high-quality info sources. With a high-quality source, the standard illusory truth effect appears. With a low-quality source, people learn to interpret repetition in different ways. 12/

We also find evidence that the illusory truth effect is stronger for implausible headlines. Rather than being a bias that prevents the processing of other info, repetition appears to form a prior (towards truth) that is integrated with what people know about the item. 11/

Second, intuitive participants (measured by CRT) show a much stronger illusory truth effect in the high-quality condition. However, they show almost minimal effects of rep in low-quality. Deliberative participants show small illusory truth in both. 10/

Are intuitions adapting? We think yes. First, response times are much faster for repeated headlines, a hallmark of processing fluency. But, the effect of rep on RTs is identical by condition. Repetition/fluency is intuitively interpreted even in the low-quality condition. 9/

But how do we adapt? In prior work, intuitions adapt to sources allowing for quick approx. Bayesian inference. Here, we argue that repetition is processed intuitively, both in the standard illusory truth effect and its reinterpretation in low-quality. Thread from old site:
x.com/DG_Rand/stat... 8/

While there is a diff by condition, the avg is + in low-quality. But, when we look at ind-level effects, most ppl in low-quality show NO illusory truth. We find frequent use of a new strategy in low-quality: decrease belief in repeated items. As ppl learn, they begin to adapt. 7/

Is the effect of repetition moderated by source credibility? YES!

The effect of repetition is about ¼ the size in the low-quality condition. This moderation occurs for true and false items. 6/

To test this prediction, ppl see 3 True & 3 False headlines repeated in 3 exposure phases + 1 judgment phase. Ppl randomized to a high-quality condition see many novel headlines that are largely true. Those in low-quality see mostly false. Feed quality -> source credibility. 5/

The model unifies 4 findings in the lit: a) baseline illusory truth, b) each additional repetition has a smaller effect on beliefs, c) repetition effects are larger for implausible items, d) novel items are believed less when repetition is common. More explanation in fig 4/

Our model captures the informational value of repetition: When a source repeats a piece of info, it is less likely to have been sent by mistake. When the source is credible, repetition signals this info is more likely to be true. 3/

Despite what it feels like, ppl consume mostly true info from credible sources (fig from @jennyallen.bsky.social ). Sources are usually good but sometimes err – friends lie, credible news sources retract.

In a formal model, we investigate what this implies for repeated info. 2/