Posdoctoral Fellow with the DRRC, Northwestern University. Researcher of Political Psychology. Talk perception gaps to me.
Joined April 2009
- Tweets1.1K
- Following329
- Followers360
- Likes5.6K
Pinned Tweet
What do we know about the psychology of censorship? In our newest preprint, we (@Leesplez @MatthewFacciani @awilson_WLU ) explore how partisans respond to and process info with a censorship frame, i.e., the communicator claims it has been suppressed.
osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nk…
Why does this matter? If people believe that info aligned with their worldview is censored, they may seek alternative sources to satisfy their curiosity. And if the information is cast as forbidden knowledge, people may be less prone to thinking critically about what they find!
Do we think only conservatives will be prone to this error? No – we just haven’t yet studied a case where liberals are exposed to forbidden knowledge consistent with their worldview. We expect patterns could reverse.
We gave people a fabricated table reporting vaccine risks. A cursory look (at numerators) suggests vaccines are risky, but careful review (considering proportions) shows no added risk. Conservatives in the censorship condition were most prone to reaching the wrong conclusion.
Importantly, we found that censorship frames can actually interrupt critical thinking about new information, especially when the information aligns with your worldview.
For instance, while conservatives across conditions perceived COVID-19 claims (e.g., vaccine risks, alternative cures) to be more censored, more attractive, and more believable than liberals, libs were *repelled* by the censorship frame and found the information less believable!
Turns out, it’s more complicated than that! We find that people’s worldviews (in particular, their political orientation) shape their attraction to, belief in, and interpretation of what we call “Forbidden Knowledge” about politically contentious COVID-19 claims.
The idea that people are attracted to the allure of the forbidden is practically a truism (e.g., the Streisand Effect), but is that the whole story?
This allows communicators to make rhetorical *claims* of censorship, while also offering that “forbidden knowledge” to their audience.
With the easy spread of misinformation online, there are often calls for content moderation or censorship. However, even when information is suppressed on some platforms it is usually available elsewhere.
Victoria A. Parker, PhD. retweeted
In a new commentary @mollycrockett and I hypothesize 3 ways norm psychology is impacted through interactions with social media. In other words, we do (2) and (6) from below thread😂
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs…
This quoted post is unavailable.
Victoria A. Parker, PhD. retweeted
“The issue isn’t just about debunking false information — it also involves addressing extremists’ need for social belonging and identity affirmation.”
Nice description of our new paper on extremism and misinformation sharing (led by @ClaraPretus) teapaw.org/vanbavellab/status/167…
What’s Really Going On In The Mind Of A Political Extremist forbes.com/sites/traversmark… via @forbes
50% "get their news from social media."
"...people who think they can’t be fooled by misinformation are the most likely to believe it."
Add ideology, confirmation bias, & in-group signalling = recipe for a post-truth society
The newest little scientist in the family arrived July 17th! Very happy to introduce our little garden rose, our forest fairy, Adelaide Briar.
Victoria A. Parker, PhD. retweeted
👓 NEW PAPER👓 ACROPHILY ON TWITTER: users (especially conservatives) are more likely to affiliate with others of their own political group who have *more extreme views* compared to moderate views (taking available users into account).
1/6
osf.io/cmx4p
Victoria A. Parker, PhD. retweeted
Join RCGD's Winter Seminar Series on Political Polarization Mondays at 3:30 at @umisr 1430. R/T and follow @RCGD_ISR for more on this outstanding series, open to the public. rcgd.isr.umich.edu/news-even…
ALT William J. Brady Overperception of moral outrage in online social networks Jan. 23, 2023 Ken Kollman When People Change Their Partisanship, is it Bottom-Up or Top-Down? Jan. 30, 2023 Mara Ostfeld The Evolving Relationship Between Race, Skin Color and Power in American Politics Feb. 6, 2023 David Dunning Motivation and Emotion in Political Thought and Division Feb. 13, 2023 Jennifer Wolak Political Embarrassment and Partisan Cooperation Feb. 20, 2023 Yanna Krupnikov ‘Unfriending’: Polarization and Political Disagreement in Social Networks March 6, 2023 Anne Wilson Political polarization real and imagined: What do we get most wrong about our political opponents and does it matter Shanto Iyengar Taking Stock of Research on Affective Polarization March 20 Delia Baldassarri March 27 Eli Finkel Fighting Phantoms: Disagreement vs. Disdain in the American Body Politic April 3 Josh Kalla, April 10 Does Affective Polarization Undermine Democratic Norms Yphtach Lelkes, April 17
I have OTHER news as well! We'll be welcoming a little scientist to the family in July! Which means she'll be tagging along to my dissertation defense in the spring. I hope her suggested edits aren't too difficult to implement.
I have some news to share! VERY excited and honoured to be joining the Dispute Resolution Research Center (DRRC) at @NorthwesternU's Kellogg school of Managemet as a Postdoctoral Fellow this fall! Thank you DRRC, I can't wait to dive into this exciting opportunity with you!
Victoria A. Parker, PhD. retweeted
🚨New paper🚨 with @venyab04 & @DG_Rand via @MisinfoReview: Accuracy prompts improve sharing quality for news w/o impacting other engagement (liking) or content (social); but adding colored borders to news increases news engagement regardless of truth 1/N
misinforeview.hks.harvard.ed…
