O seu browser não suporta JavaScript! Duane Wegener e Pablo Briñol | ISPA – Instituto Universitário

Newsletter ISPA

Duane Wegener e Pablo Briñol

Duane Wegener e Pablo Briñol
WJCR Talk 2018 - Duane Wegener e Pablo Briñol
WJCR Talk 2018

Sexta, Novembro 09, 2018 - 10:30

Sexta, Novembro 09, 2018 - 19:30

Auditório 1

No próximo dia 9 de novembro, teremos de volta as WJCR Talk 2018.


10H30 - Fake News and Biased News – Same or Different?: Differentiating between Source Untrustworthiness and Source Bias  |  Duane Wegener (Ohio State University)


17H30 - The Importance of Considering the Perceived Validity of Our Own Thoughts  |  Pablo Briñol (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; Ohio State University)


A entrada é livre mediante inscrição para ue@ispa.pt




Fake News and Biased News – Same or Different?: Differentiating between Source Untrustworthiness and Source Bias  |  Duane Wegener (Ohio State University)

News sources often label themselves as “most trusted” or as “balanced and fair,” whereas opponents label contrary sources as “fake” or “biased.” Are these simply interchangeable positive versus negative assessments, or do untrustworthiness and bias function separately (or maybe even differently)? Traditional research in communication and persuasion often treated these concepts interchangeably (as consequences of vested interest) and mostly used the concept of trustworthiness to link vested interest to the notion of source credibility. However, there are reasons to conceptually separate bias from untrustworthiness, and I and my colleagues have sought to demonstrate that bias and untrustworthiness are separable and have independent effects. I will present studies empirically distinguishing lay concepts of bias (as motivated reasoning) and untrustworthiness (as willingness to be dishonest), and I will present data showing independent effects of bias and untrustworthiness on perceived source credibility and persuasion. These effects can also be distinguished from perceived source expertise and likeability. Though source bias and untrustworthiness can each decrease perceived source credibility, there are some circumstances in which bias and untrustworthiness have different directional effects. For example, unlike untrustworthiness, knowing a source has a bias leads recipients to develop strong expectations that the source will continue to take the same position. As a result, if the source changes positions, initial source bias leads to greater surprise than source objectivity (whereas source untrustworthiness can lead to less surprise at switching compared with source trustworthiness). Differences in surprise at position switching can also have downstream consequences for inferences about evidence quality and ultimate persuasion. Current and future research examines unique antecedents of perceived source bias, such as failing to provide compelling reasons to support one’s adopted position. Though relatively early in the research program, the research to date suggests that it is important to understand perceptions of source bias and source untrustworthiness as conceptually distinct and consequential. I and my colleagues believe that the unique consequences of such factors may also extend considerably beyond the persuasion context in which the current research was conducted.


The Importance of Considering the Perceived Validity of Our Own Thoughts  |  Pablo Briñol (Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; Ohio State University)

This presentation examines the role of meta-cognitive processes in attitude change. Meta-cognition refers to thinking about thinking. Meta-cognition is important because it can magnify, attenuate, or even reverse the impact of those primary thoughts on judgment. A key meta-cognitive dimension is the perceived validity of one´s thoughts. There are two different types of thought validation. People can rely on their thoughts because they believe their thoughts are correct (cognitive validation) or because they feel good about their thoughts (affective validation). Across different paradigms, I will present recent evidence revealing that different people look for sources of validity in different places. Also, I will specify the conditions that facilitate the operation of validation processes. Finally, I will describe ongoing research revealing that changing the meaning of a variable (from high to low validity, or vice versa) can change the effect of that variable on thought usage. By taking into consideration thought validity we have been able to discover many new effects, as well as to reinterpret past findings under an innovative view with a powerful integrative value. 



Saiba mais em: http://wjcr.ispa.pt/pagina/wjcr-events