The relative contribution of content and context factors on the interpretation of conditionals

Previous research showed that conditional reasoning is affected by the content and the context of the studied problems. In this study, we investigate in detail the relative effect of three factors, namely the number of alternative or disabling reasons, speaker control, and pragmatic type, on the interpretation of conditionals. These factors were subject to prior research, but mostly in a fragmented way. This study indicates that some important nuances must be added to earlier findings. The number of alternatives and disablers, the speaker control, and the pragmatic type of conditional statements all have a considerable effect on how we interpret these sentences and reason with them, but they do not have equal weight. Alternatives/disablers play a significant but very limited role on the interpretation of conditionals, while the influence of speaker control and of pragmatic type is far more imperative.     

Does disseminating (mis)information restore social connection during a global pandemic?

The COVID-19 pandemic impeded social interaction, negatively affecting well-being worldwide. To slow virus spread, practices were enacted to minimize face-to-face contact, leading to increased social disconnection. As people turned increasingly to online environments (e.g., social media) to fulfill needs for inclusion and belonging, misinformation regarding COVID-19 simultaneously ran rampant. The purpose of the current study was to examine whether impeded social inclusion may have contributed to the spread of misinformation. We recruited a sample of adult social media users in the United States (N = 431) and randomly assigned them to be either included, ostracized (i.e., ignored), or rejected (i.e., to receive explicitly negative attention). Participants subsequently rated their willingness to share COVID-19 claims via social media (in fact, all claims were false). Participants learned that sharing some claims would likely lead to high expected engagement from others on social media (e.g., “likes”), whereas some claims would likely lead to little expected engagement. While information sharing was low in our sample, participants were more willing to share claims that they believed would lead to higher levels of engagement—consistent with the idea that sharing information is motivated not only by the desire to educate others but also to elicit social connection. However, this behavioral intention was no more common among participants who had been momentarily ostracized or rejected online than among participants who had been included. Future research should continue to explore the link between social exclusion and the motivation to disseminate (mis)information beyond a pandemic-related context.     

Addressing Unintended Consequences of Gender Diversity Interventions on Women’s Sense of Belonging in STEM

Sex Roles - Validated interventions that increase bias literacy (i.e., knowledge of gender bias) and decrease sexism are critical to addressing pervasive gender biases in science, technology,...