scholarly journals A Guideline and Cautionary Note: How to Use the Belief Update Task Correctly

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tali Sharot ◽  
Neil Garrett

In 2011 we published a paper showing that people update their beliefs to a greater extent in response to good news (e.g., learning that the likelihood of robbery is lower than expected) than bad news (e.g., learning it is lower than expected) (Sharot et al., 2011). This phenomenon, which can lead to increased optimistic beliefs, is absent in depression. Since then, our belief update task has been used by many others to test a wide range of questions related to belief formation and optimism. Most of these studies are rigorous and well conducted. However, a small number of researchers have used the task inappropriately, inserting new confounds and failing to control for other potential ones. This has resulted in the report of false findings which have muddied the literature and caused confusion. Given these incidents and the enthusiasm for using the task across different disciplines, the need for guidelines on how to use the belief update task correctly has become apparent. The belief update task can be a helpful tool in studying beliefs in domains ranging from climate change to health, but like any other task it must be used properly if valid conclusions are to be reached. We hope this guide will be helpful for scientists who would like to use the belief update task, as well as readers, reviewers and editors who are required to evaluate studies using this task.

Author(s):  
Mark C. Freeman ◽  
Gernot Wagner ◽  
Richard J. Zeckhauser

Climate change is real and dangerous. Exactly how bad it will get, however, is uncertain. Uncertainty is particularly relevant for estimates of one of the key parameters: equilibrium climate sensitivity—how eventual temperatures will react as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double. Despite significant advances in climate science and increased confidence in the accuracy of the range itself, the ‘likely’ range has been 1.5–4.5°C for over three decades. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) narrowed it to 2–4.5°C, only to reverse its decision in 2013, reinstating the prior range. In addition, the 2013 IPCC report removed prior mention of 3°C as the ‘best estimate’. We interpret the implications of the 2013 IPCC decision to lower the bottom of the range and excise a best estimate. Intuitively, it might seem that a lower bottom would be good news. Here we ask: when might apparently good news about climate sensitivity in fact be bad news in the sense that it lowers societal well-being? The lowered bottom value also implies higher uncertainty about the temperature increase, definitely bad news. Under reasonable assumptions, both the lowering of the lower bound and the removal of the ‘best estimate’ may well be bad news.


Author(s):  
Cass R. Sunstein ◽  
Stephanie C. Lazzaro ◽  
Tali Sharot
Keyword(s):  
Bad News ◽  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cass R Sunstein ◽  
Sebastian Bobadilla-Suarez ◽  
Stephanie C. Lazzaro ◽  
Tali Sharot

102 Cornell L. Rev. 1431 (2017)People are frequently exposed to competing evidence about climate change. We examined how new information alters people’s beliefs. We find that people who are not sure that man-made climate change is occurring, and who do not favor an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, show a form of asymmetrical updating: They change their beliefs in response to unexpected good news (suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be less than previously thought) and fail to change their beliefs in response to unexpected bad news (suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be greater than previously thought). By contrast, people who strongly believe that manmade climate change is occurring, and who favor an international agreement, show the opposite asymmetry: They change their beliefs far more in response to unexpected bad news (suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be greater than previously thought) than in response to unexpected good news (suggesting that average temperature rise is likely to be smaller than previously thought). The results suggest that exposure to varied scientific evidence about climate change may increase polarization within a population due to asymmetrical updating. We explore the implications of our findings for how people will update their beliefs upon receiving new evidence about climate change, and also for other beliefs relevant to politics and law.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Legg ◽  
Kate Sweeny
Keyword(s):  
Bad News ◽  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler Colasante ◽  
Lauren Lin ◽  
Kalee DeFrance ◽  
Tom Hollenstein

In the current digital age, emotional support is increasingly received through digital devices. However, virtually all studies assessing the benefits of emotional support have focused on in-person support. Using an experience sampling methodology, we assessed participants’ negative emotions, digital and in-person support for those emotions, and success in regulating them three times per day for 14 days, thus covering a wide range of digital support scenarios (N = 164 participants with 6,530 collective measurement occasions). We also considered whether participants were alone versus with others at the time of their negative emotion and higher versus lower in social avoidance as plausible moderators of when digital support was utilized and effective. We expected more pronounced use and efficacy of digital support when participants were alone and higher in trait social avoidance. However, digital support was used and perceived as effective for regulating negative emotions regardless of these factors and its beneficial effects were on par with those of traditional in-person support. The unique benefits of digital support may not be restricted to socially isolated or socially avoidant users. These findings are timely given the widespread anxiety and isolation under the current COVID-19 pandemic. If transcending time and space with digital emotional support is the new norm, the good news is that it seems to be working.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document