Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis of demographic and psychological factors.

Nearly five billion people use and receive news through social media and there is widespread concern about the negative consequences of misinformation on social media (e.g., election interference, vaccine hesitancy).

Earlier social information has a stronger influence on judgments.

People's decisions are often informed by the choices of others. Evidence accumulation models provide a mechanistic account of how such social information enters the choice process. Previous research taking this approach has suggested two fundamentally different cognitive mechanisms by which people incorporate social information.

A Cognitive Computational Approach to Social and Collective Decision-Making.

Collective dynamics play a key role in everyday decision-making. Whether social influence promotes the spread of accurate information and ultimately results in adaptive behavior or leads to false information cascades and maladaptive social contagion strongly depends on the cognitive mechanisms underlying social interactions. Here we argue that cognitive modeling, in tandem with experiments that allow collective dynamics to emerge, can mechanistically link cognitive processes at the individual and collective levels.

Time pressure reduces misinformation discrimination ability but does not alter response bias.

Many parts of our social lives are speeding up, a process known as social acceleration. How social acceleration impacts people's ability to judge the veracity of online news, and ultimately the spread of misinformation, is largely unknown. We examined the effects of accelerated online dynamics, operationalised as time pressure, on online misinformation evaluation.

Avoiding costly mistakes in groups: The evolution of error management in collective decision making.

Individuals continuously have to balance the error costs of alternative decisions. A wealth of research has studied how single individuals navigate this, showing that individuals develop response biases to avoid the more costly error. We, however, know little about the dynamics in groups facing asymmetrical error costs and when social influence amplifies either safe or risky behavior.

Causal evidence for the adaptive benefits of social foraging in the wild.

Sociality is a fundamental organizing principle across taxa, thought to come with a suite of adaptive benefits. However, making causal inferences about these adaptive benefits requires experimental manipulation of the social environment, which is rarely feasible in the field. Here we manipulated the number of conspecifics in Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata) in the wild, and quantified how this affected a key benefit of sociality, social foraging, by investigating several components of foraging success.

Strategies for integrating disparate social information.

Social information use is widespread in the animal kingdom, helping individuals rapidly acquire useful knowledge and adjust to novel circumstances. In humans, the highly interconnected world provides ample opportunities to benefit from social information but also requires navigating complex social environments with people holding disparate or conflicting views. It is, however, still largely unclear how people integrate information from multiple social sources that (dis)agree with them, and among each other.

Wise or mad crowds? The cognitive mechanisms underlying information cascades.

Whether getting vaccinated, buying stocks, or crossing streets, people rarely make decisions alone. Rather, multiple people decide sequentially, setting the stage for information cascades whereby early-deciding individuals can influence others' choices. To understand how information cascades through social systems, it is essential to capture the dynamics of the decision-making process.

Females facilitate male food patch discovery in a wild fish population.

Responding to the information provided by others is an important foraging strategy in many species. Through social foraging, individuals can more efficiently find unpredictable resources and thereby increase their foraging success. When individuals are more socially responsive to particular phenotypes than others, however, the advantage they obtain from foraging socially is likely to depend on the phenotype composition of the social environment.