The Wisdom of the Crowd is not a Forgone Conclusion. Effects of Self-Selection on (Collaborative) Knowledge Construction

Web 2.0 has elevated the possibilities of collaboration to unprecedented levels. Therein lies great potential, as the aptly coined phenomenon "Wisdom of the Crowd" implies. When it comes to controversial topics, however, there is no safety in numbers alone. On the contrary, collaboration among only like-minded people may even exacerbate biases (e.g., Echo Chambers). Yet, it is human nature to seek out like-minded others. Consequently, the process of self-selection is crucial if the heterogeneity of opinions serves as a safeguard against undesirable effects of group processes (e.g., attitude polarization). Accordingly, online environments that invite more heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous) users should produce less biased content. We tested this hypothesis in a field study, comparing articles on the same 20 controversial topics from the online encyclopedias Conservapedia and RationalWiki with Wikipedia (and Britannica serving as a gold standard) and exploring the opinions of discussants in the three online encyclopedias. As expected, articles from Conservapedia and RationalWiki were significantly less balanced than articles from Wikipedia and Britannica. We replicated this finding in a lab study with 257 participants who self-selected to one of three online wikis (Vegan Love, Nutrition, Meat & Fish) and individually as well as collaboratively wrote an encyclopedia-like article about "Diets." As expected, Wikis with a specific focus (Vegan Love, Meat & Fish) predominantly attracted authors with a positive attitude toward this focus and, as a consequence, resulted in more biased content than in the Nutrition Wiki. Overall, our results suggest that crowds alone do not guarantee wisdom-self-selection is a crucial process that needs to be taken into account.

How article category in Wikipedia determines the heterogeneity of its editors

Collaboration is essential to advancing knowledge and, ultimately, entire societies. With the development of Web 2.0, the possibilities have risen to unprecedented levels and allowed for the collaborative creation of the world's largest compendium of knowledge that ever existed - Wikipedia. Collaboration is not a safeguard of quality per se, however. Rather, the quality of Wikipedia articles rises with the number of editors per article as well as a greater diversity among them. Here, we address a not yet documented potential threat to those preconditions: self-selection of Wikipedia editors to articles. Specifically, we expected articles with a clear-cut link to a specific country (e.g., about its highest mountain, "national" article category) to attract a larger proportion of editors of that nationality when compared to articles without any specific link to that country (e.g., "gravity", "universal" article category), whereas articles with a link to several countries (e.g., "United Nations", "international" article category) should fall in between. Across several language versions, hundreds of different articles, and hundreds of thousands of editors, we find the expected effect within Wikipedia: The more exclusively an article topic is linked to a particular nation, the higher the proportion of editors from that country is among the contributors.

Toward Parsimony in Bias Research: A Proposed Common Framework of Belief-Consistent Information Processing for a Set of Biases

One of the essential insights from psychological research is that people's information processing is often biased. By now, a number of different biases have been identified and empirically demonstrated. Unfortunately, however, these biases have often been examined in separate lines of research, thereby precluding the recognition of shared principles. Here we argue that several-so far mostly unrelated-biases (e.g., bias blind spot, hostile media bias, egocentric/ethnocentric bias, outcome bias) can be traced back to the combination of a fundamental prior belief and humans' tendency toward belief-consistent information processing. What varies between different biases is essentially the specific belief that guides information processing. More importantly, we propose that different biases even share the same underlying belief and differ only in the specific outcome of information processing that is assessed (i.e., the dependent variable), thus tapping into different manifestations of the same latent information processing. In other words, we propose for discussion a model that suffices to explain several different biases. We thereby suggest a more parsimonious approach compared with current theoretical explanations of these biases. We also generate novel hypotheses that follow directly from the integrative nature of our perspective.

What determines hindsight bias in written work? One field and three experimental studies in the context of Wikipedia

Hindsight bias not only occurs in individual perception but in written work (e.g., Wikipedia articles) as well. To avoid the possibility that biased written representations of events distort the views of broad audiences, one needs to understand the factors that determine hindsight bias in written work. Therefore, we tested the effect of three potential determinants: the extent to which an event evokes sense-making motivation, the availability of verifiable causal information regarding the event, and the provision of content policies. We conducted one field study examining real Wikipedia articles (N = 40) and three preregistered experimental studies in which participants wrote or edited articles based on different materials (total N = 720). In each experiment, we systematically varied one determinant. Findings provide further-and even more general-support that Wikipedia articles about various events contain hindsight bias. The magnitude of hindsight bias in written work was contingent on the sense-making motivation and the availability of causal information. We did not find support for the effect of content policies. Findings are in line with causal model theory and suggest that some types and topics of written work might be particularly biased by hindsight (e.g., coverage of disasters, research reports, written expert opinions). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

What drives increases in hindsight impressions after the reception of biased media content?

Prior research has shown that reading biased media content (e.g., Wikipedia articles) can increase recipients' hindsight bias. It remained unclear, however, which features of the biased texts led to such an increase. We examined this question in a longitudinal experimental study (N = 190). Specifically, we tested whether repeated exposure to already known information (H₁), a more coherent presentation of the information (H₂), or the presentation of novel information (H₃) affected readers' hindsight impressions of likelihood, inevitability, and foreseeability. To this end, participants initially learned about an event by reading several short news, and, 1 week later, received one of several summarizing texts, which systematically varied in the information contained. We found empirical support for the unique effect of mere repeated exposure and receiving novel information. Since media coverage of meaningful events is usually highly repetitive but also often comprising novel information, our findings contribute to a better understanding of how hindsight bias may publicly persist or even increase over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Collectively biased representations of the past: Ingroup Bias in Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts

Individuals tend to present their own group (the ingroup) in a systematically more favourable way (ingroup bias). By examining socially negotiated and publicly accessible Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts, we investigated ingroup bias at a collective level. Specifically, we compared articles about the same intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Falklands War) in the corresponding language versions of Wikipedia (e.g., the Spanish and English Wikipedia articles about the Falklands War). Study 1 featured a content coding of translated Wikipedia articles by trained raters, which showed that articles systematically presented the ingroup in a more favourable way (e.g., Argentina in the Spanish article and the United Kingdom in the English article) and, in reverse, the outgroup as more immoral and more responsible for the conflict. These findings were replicated and extended in Study 2, which was limited to the lead sections of articles but included considerably more conflicts and many participants instead of a few trained coders. This procedure allowed for separate analyses for each conflict, which showed considerable variance in the results pattern with a stronger ingroup bias for (1) more recent conflicts and (2) conflicts in which the proportion of ingroup members among the top editors was larger. Finally, a third study ruled out that these effects were driven by translations or the raters' own nationality. Therefore, this paper is the first to demonstrate ingroup bias in Wikipedia - a finding that is of practical as well as theoretical relevance as we outline in the discussion.

Is there hindsight bias without real hindsight? Conjectures are sufficient to elicit hindsight bias

After learning about an event, people often mistakenly believe to have predicted what happened all along (hindsight bias). However, what if what has happened is not known, but subject to conjecture? Could conjectures, in the absence of knowledge about the event, elicit the same bias and make people believe they "conjectured it all along", too? We examined this question in 2 studies. Immediately after the disappearance of flight MH370 in March, 2014, we asked N = 432 individuals about the likelihood of a number of possible events. One year later, N = 100 of these individuals participated again and were randomly assigned to 2 experimental conditions. Participants in the current conjecture group answered the same questions from their current perspective, participants in the reproduced conjecture group were asked to reproduce their earlier estimates. Results show that conjectures had changed over time and affected participants' reproductions of their earlier estimates. We replicated this finding in a controlled lab experiment (N = 94) and found a comparable magnitude of conjecture-based and knowledge-based hindsight bias. These findings demonstrate hindsight distortions in the absence of definite knowledge and extend theoretical assumptions about the prerequisites of hindsight bias in the context of events. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Early-Career Researchers’ Perceptions of the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Potential Causes, and Open Science

Abstract. Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution. While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures. A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.

Produktion von naturwissenschaftlichen Informationen im Internet am Beispiel von Wikipedia

Zusammenfassung. Im Internet können Laien nicht nur naturwissenschaftliche Informationen passiv rezipieren, sondern diese auch aktiv produzieren. Wie verarbeiten sie dabei Informationen, sofern sie unsicher und widersprüchlich sind? Während Forschungsarbeiten dazu vorliegen, wie Rezipienten mit fragilen und konflikthaften Informationen und Theorien umgehen, ist bisher noch wenig zu den Einflussfaktoren auf die Produktion von naturwissenschaftlichen Informationen durch Laien im Internet bekannt. In unserem Beitrag zeigen wir verschiedene Einflussfaktoren auf und leiten Vorhersagen zum Produktionsverhalten und den resultierenden Textprodukten ab. Schließlich illustrieren wir unsere Überlegungen an der Online-Enzyklopädie Wikipedia.

Red Color and Risk-Taking Behavior in Online Environments

In many situations red is associated with hazard and danger. As a consequence, it was expected that task-irrelevant color cues in online environments would affect risk-taking behaviors. This assumption was tested in two web-based experiments. The first study (N = 383) demonstrated that in risky choice dilemmas respondents preferred the less risky option when the displayed university logo was in red (versus gray); but only when both choice alternatives were at least moderately risky. The second study (N = 144) replicated these results with a behavioral outcome: Respondents showed more cautious behavior in a web-based game when the focal stimuli were colored red (versus blue). Together, these findings demonstrate that variations in the color design of a computerized environment affect risk taking: Red color leads to more conservative choices and behaviors.

Learning and Collective Knowledge Construction With Social Media: A Process-Oriented Perspective

Social media are increasingly being used for educational purposes. The first part of this article briefly reviews literature that reports on educational applications of social media tools. The second part discusses theories that may provide a basis for analyzing the processes that are relevant for individual learning and collective knowledge construction. We argue that a systems-theoretical constructivist approach is appropriate to examine the processes of educational social media use, namely, self-organization, the internalization of information, the externalization of knowledge, and the interplay of externalization and internalization providing the basis of a co-evolution of cognitive and social systems. In the third part we present research findings that illustrate and support this systems-theoretical framework. Concluding, we discuss the implications for educational design and for future research on learning and collective knowledge construction with social media.

Confirmation bias in web-based search: a randomized online study on the effects of expert information and social tags on information search and evaluation

BACKGROUND

The public typically believes psychotherapy to be more effective than pharmacotherapy for depression treatments. This is not consistent with current scientific evidence, which shows that both types of treatment are about equally effective.

OBJECTIVE

The study investigates whether this bias towards psychotherapy guides online information search and whether the bias can be reduced by explicitly providing expert information (in a blog entry) and by providing tag clouds that implicitly reveal experts' evaluations.

METHODS

A total of 174 participants completed a fully automated Web-based study after we invited them via mailing lists. First, participants read two blog posts by experts that either challenged or supported the bias towards psychotherapy. Subsequently, participants searched for information about depression treatment in an online environment that provided more experts' blog posts about the effectiveness of treatments based on alleged research findings. These blogs were organized in a tag cloud; both psychotherapy tags and pharmacotherapy tags were popular. We measured tag and blog post selection, efficacy ratings of the presented treatments, and participants' treatment recommendation after information search.

RESULTS

Participants demonstrated a clear bias towards psychotherapy (mean 4.53, SD 1.99) compared to pharmacotherapy (mean 2.73, SD 2.41; t173=7.67, P<.001, d=0.81) when rating treatment efficacy prior to the experiment. Accordingly, participants exhibited biased information search and evaluation. This bias was significantly reduced, however, when participants were exposed to tag clouds with challenging popular tags. Participants facing popular tags challenging their bias (n=61) showed significantly less biased tag selection (F2,168=10.61, P<.001, partial eta squared=0.112), blog post selection (F2,168=6.55, P=.002, partial eta squared=0.072), and treatment efficacy ratings (F2,168=8.48, P<.001, partial eta squared=0.092), compared to bias-supporting tag clouds (n=56) and balanced tag clouds (n=57). Challenging (n=93) explicit expert information as presented in blog posts, compared to supporting expert information (n=81), decreased the bias in information search with regard to blog post selection (F1,168=4.32, P=.04, partial eta squared=0.025). No significant effects were found for treatment recommendation (Ps>.33).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the psychotherapy bias is most effectively attenuated-and even eliminated-when popular tags implicitly point to blog posts that challenge the widespread view. Explicit expert information (in a blog entry) was less successful in reducing biased information search and evaluation. Since tag clouds have the potential to counter biased information processing, we recommend their insertion.

Do We Relatively or Absolutely Overestimate Rare Events?

How good are we at estimating the frequency of rare events? Previous evidence has been mixed: While some studies report well-calibrated frequency judgments, others found rare events to be overestimated. We examined whether the distinctiveness of a rare event fosters overestimation. Distinctiveness may result from exceptional valence, statistical infrequency, or the joint occurrence of two distinct features. Such paired distinctiveness has been found to be particularly salient. We conducted two experiments to investigate the impact of paired distinctiveness and valence on frequency estimations of rare events by combining two paradigms from the decision-making literature and the social psychology literature on stereotypes. The results indicate that rarity alone does not necessarily result in overestimation; rather, the combination of statistical infrequency and small sample sizes (i.e., paired distinctiveness) led participants to overestimate the frequency of a rare event. We were able to rule out alternative explanations such as regression to the mean, but the exact role of outcome valence needs further investigation.

If anything else comes to mind...better keep it to yourself? Delayed recall is discrediting--unjustifiably

Inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts are perceived as indicative of inaccuracy and reduce the witnesses' credibility. Reminiscence, the delayed recall of previously not recalled information, is generally interpreted as a type of inconsistency. Even though it does not necessarily involve the falsity of the statements, reminiscence presents a counterintuitive instance with mostly unknown reliability. Two studies empirically assessed the accuracy of reminiscent items after retention intervals of up to 1 week and contrasted them with peoples' beliefs regarding their accuracy. In line with an implicit assumption of memory fading with the passage of time, delayed recall of previously unmentioned details was judged to be unreliable. In contrast, actual accuracy of reminiscent details was consistently high and even comparable to immediate recollections. Although participants generally underestimated accuracy, it was most pronounced in the case of reminiscence. The findings are discussed within the context of contemporary legal practice, such as jury instructions.