Changing The Narrative is a network of reporters, researchers, academics, and advocates concerned about the way media represents drug use and addiction. Our mission is to help journalists and opinion leaders provide accurate, humane, and scientifically-grounded information in this contested terrain. We offer expert sources —including people with lived experience of the issues — and up-to-date, fact-checked, and evidence-based information on news and controversies.
An Introduction to AI is a free online course for everyone interested in learning what AI is, what is possible (and not possible) with AI, and how it affects our lives – with no complicated math or programming required.
Immense amounts of information are now accessible to people, including information that bears on their past, present and
future. An important research challenge is to determine how people decide to seek or avoid information. Here we propose a
framework of information-seeking that aims to integrate the diverse motives that drive information-seeking and its avoidance.
Our framework rests on the idea that information can alter people’s action, affect and cognition in both positive and negative
ways. The suggestion is that people assess these influences and integrate them into a calculation of the value of information
that leads to information-seeking or avoidance. The theory offers a framework for characterizing and quantifying individual
differences in information-seeking, which we hypothesize may also be diagnostic of mental health. We consider biases that can
lead to both insufficient and excessive information-seeking. We also discuss how the framework can help government agencies
to assess the welfare effects of mandatory information disclosure.
HXLDash is a dashboard and online mapping tool designed for humanitarians and humanitarian contexts. HXLDash's aim is to make creating dashboards possible in less than 2 minutes by leveraging the power of the Humanitarian Exchange Language and linking to the common operation datasets.
And as to the central question of using both fear and hope: “I think we're in a moment where fear is a
stronger motivator than hope,“ Parfrey began. “I'm looking at the evidence. I'm looking at Greta Thunberg.
There is a tinge of the apocalypse in her framing.“ But Parfrey was quick to add that fear, by itself, isn't the
only button to press.
“The data is clear on this,“ he said. “The more dire the messages sound, the more individuals will tuneout. And I say this with full-knowledge that the climate picture is dire. You have to be honest, you have to
present the sobering information, yet we still have the choice before us to dramatically improve the
situation or make it worse. The choice is still ours.“
In this article, we demonstrated that contrary to the thinking that suggests MTurk is a tapped-out resource, in reality, the opposite is true: MTurk is a vast resource with untapped potential researchers can capitalize on by changing the way they use the platform.
Addressing the Social Proof Question
The online fundraising team often receives questions and comments about the use of negative social proof in our fundraising messages. Social proof is the phenomenon that people are prone to copy the actions of others; for example, if an individual is exposed to a group of people doing or buying something, they are more likely to do so themselves.
One of the most recognizable phrases in our fundraising banners takes the opposite approach, stating:
“... fewer than 1% of readers give.”
“... 99% of readers don’t give.”
The online fundraising team has tested, dozens of times, removing this fact from our materials. Our donation rate drops when we try. This past year we engaged with some experts in the field and asked them to explore further why we consistently see this finding. Is there something about a non-profit or a donation context that alters the rules of social proof? We plan on continuing to conduct tests this coming year in hopes of finding conclusions around the fundraising and non-profit context of social proof.
Behavioral spillovers refer to the influence that a given intervention targeting behavior 1 exerts on a subsequent, non-targeted, behavior 2, which may or may not be in the same domain (health, finance, etc.) as one another. So, a nudge to exercise more, for example, could lead people to eat more or less, or possibly even to give more or less to charity depending on the nature of the spillover. But what if spillovers also operate backward; that is, if the expectation of behavior 1 influences behavior 0 that precedes it? For example, a person may form an intention to exercise prompted by a policy intervention but overeat at present as a result. We define such a possibility as a “spillunder.” In the proposed article, we critically review the few papers that we have identified through a narrative literature review which have demonstrated spillunder effects to date, and we propose a conceptual framework.