PsychRN: Attitudes & Social Cognition (Topic)最新文献

{"title":"COVID-19: Level of Concern Explained","authors":"Erjon Gjoci","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3713602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3713602","url":null,"abstract":"COVID19 Sentiment survey data shows that the level of concern has a strong inverse relationship with the respondents' confidence in government response to the virus. The results show that the lower the confidence in government response, the higher the level of concern.","PeriodicalId":369029,"journal":{"name":"PsychRN: Attitudes & Social Cognition (Topic)","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134290461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Primary and Secondary Emotions as an Instrument to Measure Implicit Prejudice","authors":"E. Agadullina, O. Gulevich, M. Terskova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3495082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3495082","url":null,"abstract":"The article presents the results of the selection of relevant to the Russian context emotions perceived as primary (which humans share with animals) or secondary (experienced only by humans). Three stages of the selection and evaluation of emotions made it possible to distinguish 12 emotions: primary positive emotions (Joy, Pleasure, and Interest), primary negative emotions (Anger, Irritation, and Rage), secondary positive emotions (Inspiration, Afflatus, and Enthusiasm), and secondary negative emotions (Disappointment, Regret, and Devastation). The results of confirmatory and multigroup confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated that these emotions are well grouped into primary-secondary subgroups and that their valence is important to grouping. The highlighted emotions can be used to study implicit prejudices towards various social groups.","PeriodicalId":369029,"journal":{"name":"PsychRN: Attitudes & Social Cognition (Topic)","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130209095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Joint Distributional Choices: An Experimental Analysis","authors":"N. Olekalns, Hugh Sibly, Amy Cormany","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3528762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3528762","url":null,"abstract":"This paper uses an economic experiment to identify the presence of descriptive norms associated with the jointly determined division of a surplus. We consider the results from a two-stage experiment in which participants contribute to a common pool which is then divided using a coordination game between participants. Treatments effects are introduced by varying the context in which individual contributions to the pool are established. We find there is no simple universal principle (or norm) guiding participants when they make these joint distributional choices. Rather, we find self-interest, self-serving bias and a participant's contribution relative to others play a role in determining their distributive choices, their expectations regarding their partners’ likely choices and their evaluation of the fairness of the resulting outcomes. Additionally, we find that the way in which these determinants influence choice depends on whether individual contributions are determined randomly instead of by individuals’ skill or effort.","PeriodicalId":369029,"journal":{"name":"PsychRN: Attitudes & Social Cognition (Topic)","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132966043","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial Intelligence Needs Human Rights: How the Focus on Ethical AI Fails to Address Privacy, Discrimination and Other Concerns","authors":"Kate Saslow, Philippe Lorenz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3589473","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3589473","url":null,"abstract":"AI has been a catalyst for automation and efficiency in numerous ways, but has also had harmful consequences, including: unforeseen algorithmic bias that affects already marginalized communities, as with Amazon’s AI recruiting algorithm that showed bias against women; accountability and liability coming into question if an autonomous vehicle injures or kills, as seen with Uber’s self-driving car casualties; even the notion of democracy is being challenged as the technology enables authoritarian and democratic states like China and the United States to practice surveillance at an unprecedented scale.<br><br>The risks as well as the need for some form of basic rules have not gone unnoticed and governments, tech companies, research consortiums or advocacy groups have broached the issue. In fact, this has been the topic of local, national, and supranational discussion for some years now, as can be seen with new legislation popping up to ban facial recognition software in public spaces. The problem with these discussions, however, is that they have been heavily dominated by how we can make AI more “ethical”. Companies, states, and even international organizations discuss ethical principles, such as fair, accountable, responsible, or safe AI in numerous expert groups or ad hoc committees, such as the High-Level Expert Group on AI in the European Commission, the group on AI in Society of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), or the select committee on Artificial Intelligence of the United Kingdom House of Lords.<br><br>This may sound like a solid approach to tackling the dangers that AI poses, but to actually be impactful, these discussions must be grounded in rhetoric that is focused and actionable. Not only may the principles be defined differently depending on the stakeholders, but there are overwhelming differences in how principles are interpreted and what requirements are necessary for them to materialize. In addition, ethical debates on AI are often dominated by American or Chinese companies, which are both propagating their own idea of ethical AI, but which may in many cases stand in conflict with the values of other cultures and nations. Not only do different countries have different ideas of which “ethics” principles need to be protected, but different countries play starkly different roles in developing AI. Another problem is when ethical guidelines are discussed, suggestions often come from tech companies themselves, while voices from citizens or even governments are marginalized.<br><br>Self-regulation around ethical principles is too weak to address the spreading implications that AI technologies have had. Ethical principles lack clarity and enforcement capabilities. We must stop focusing the discourse on ethical principles, and instead shift the debate to human rights. Debates must be louder at the supranational level. International pressure must be put on states and companies who fail to protect individuals b","PeriodicalId":369029,"journal":{"name":"PsychRN: Attitudes & Social Cognition (Topic)","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124205980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"'Cure or Poison?' Identity Verification and the Spread of Fake News on Social Media","authors":"S. Wang, Min-Seok Pang, P. Pavlou","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3249479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3249479","url":null,"abstract":"Fake news is increasingly prevalent on social media, and the anonymity of the Internet is a major enabler. Social media platforms seek to reduce online anonymity with identity verification by verifying user identities with email addresses, phone numbers, or government-issued photo identification. However, we ask: Is identity verification effective in deterring fake news? Using a unique dataset (spanning from 2009 to 2016) from a large-scale social media platform, we empirically investigate the impact of identity verification on the creation and sharing of fake news. In doing so, we exploit an exogenous policy change in identity verification on the social media platform as a natural experiment. Notably, our results show that identity verification may actually not deter fake news. We find that in contrast to verification with a regular badge (a badge that is \u0000designed to signal a verified status), verification with an enhanced badge (a badge that is designed to signal a superior verified status and allegedly endow higher credibility) may even fuel the proliferation of fake news. An enhanced badge for verification proliferates fake news, not only by encouraging verified users to create more fake news, but also by misleading other users into sharing fake news created by verified users. This study contributes to the literature on online anonymity and work on information diffusion on social media, while it informs leaders in social media that a costless-to-cheat identity verification system can have unintended negative effects, and that a misleading design of verification badges may amplify the influence of fake news created by verified users and incentivize more effort elicited from the strategic fake-news creators.","PeriodicalId":369029,"journal":{"name":"PsychRN: Attitudes & Social Cognition (Topic)","volume":"12 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123659140","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}