There is increasing pressure on social media companies to reduce the spread of misinformation on their platforms. However, they would prefer not to be the arbiters of truth as the truth can be subjective or otherwise hard to determine. Instead, they would prefer that social media users themselves show better discernment when deciding which information to share. Here we show that allowing people to share only those social media posts that they have indicated are true significantly improves sharing discernment, as measured by the difference in the probability of sharing true information versus the probability of sharing false information. Because it doesn’t require social media companies to be the arbiters of truth, this self-censorship intervention can be employed in situations where social media companies suspect that individuals are propagating misinformation but are not sufficiently confident in their suspicions to directly censor the individuals involved. As such, self-censorship can usefully supplement externally imposed (i.e. traditional) censorship in reducing the propagation of false information on social media platforms.


Self-Censorship Appears to be an Effective Way of Reducing the Spread of Misinformation on Social Media

Sampling assumptions --- the assumptions people make about how an example of a category or concept has been chosen --- help us learn from examples efficiently. One context where sampling assumptions are particularly important is in social contexts, where a learner needs to infer the knowledge and intentions of the information provider and vice-versa. The pedagogical sampling assumptions model describes a Bayesian account of how learners and providers should behave given different assumptions they have about the other (e.g., is the provider trying to deceive or help me? Does the learner trust me?). In this study, we tested how well this model could describe learning behaviour in the rectangle game, where a fictional information provider revealed clues about the structure of a rectangle that the learner (a participant) needed to guess. Participants received clues from either a helpful information provider, a provider who was randomly sampling clues, or one of two kinds of unhelpful providers (who could mislead but could not lie). We found that people learned efficiently and in line with model predictions when the provider was helpful and that this was the case even when no cover story was provided. However, although participants could identify that unhelpful providers were not being helpful, they struggled to learn the strategy those providers were using.


Inferring the truth from deception: What can people learn from helpful and unhelpful information providers?

Core vocabulary is a topic of huge interest in linguistics and has been studied from a wide variety of perspectives, such as language learning, dictionary studies, and cross-linguistically. In many of these conceptions, word frequency is widely considered the conventional measure of a word's coreness; however, this approach overlooks important aspects of mental representation like centrality in an associative semantic network. In this experiment, we compare different approaches to defining core words in a task that involves predicting missing words in sentences. Results showed that core words (regardless of definition) were easier to guess than non-core words, but that frequency-defined ones did not perform as well as expected given their higher predictability and the nature of the task. Analysis of incorrect responses also showed that people preferred to guess core words, simple synonyms, and words that are taxonomically related to the target. The findings suggest that how core vocabulary is defined depends in part on the nature of the task and that aspects of both mental representation and the linguistic environment play an important role.

Word Prediction in Context: An Empirical Investigation of Core Vocabulary

Perceptual training has been shown to be an effective and rapid way of training people to make simple diagnoses using medical images. However, it appears to be less effective at training people to make more complex diagnoses that require non-binary judgements. In the present study, we investigated whether perceptual training could be augmented to make it more effective and what factors limited its effectiveness. In Experiment 1, we created artificial stimuli that were designed to simulate liver ultrasound images to assess perceptual learning for a complex task that involved judgements on a 7-point scale. Whilst performance improved somewhat with training, we found that incorporating annotations into the training provided no benefits. Additionally, contrary to our expectations, training that was structured in a stepped fashion was detrimental to learning. In Experiment 2, we found that perceptual learning in a simple task with shaded disks was most impacted by the extent to which the brightness levels of each disk were discriminable but that attending to multiple locations did not result in a significant cost to performance. Our findings show that augmenting perceptual training does not increase learning and that learning is less when the relevant features are harder to discriminate.

Testing the Effectiveness of Augmenting Perceptual Training With Annotations and Steps in a Difficult Visual Discrimination Task

How and why do people share opinions online? In research conducted offline, the social identity of the audience is a key factor: whether they are composed of one’s ingroup or outgroup affects what people share and why. Do people behave similarly and for similar reasons online? To test this, we put participants (N = 326) in imaginary forums belonging to their ingroup and outgroup. In each, people selected statements to share, along with reasons for doing so. The results showed a high degree of heterogeneity; people shared nearly all kinds of statements with both audiences, for a variety of reasons. However, there were also consistent patterns. Identity expression was the most common reason for sharing to both audiences, but this led to different things being shared to each. To the ingroup, people preferred to share statements expressing ingroup beliefs, while to the outgroup, they preferred statements expressing universal beliefs.

Online communication to the ingroup and the outgroup: the role of identity in the “what” and “why” of information sharing

In many situations where people communicate (e.g., Twitter, Facebook etc), people self-organise into ‘echo chambers’ of like-minded individuals, with different echo chambers espousing very different beliefs. Why does this occur? Previous work has demonstrated that such belief polarisation can emerge even when all agents are completely rational, as long as their initial beliefs are heterogeneous and they do not automatically know who to trust. In this work, we used agent-based simulations to further investigate the mechanisms for belief polarisation. Our work extended previous work by using a more realistic scenario. In this scenario, we found that previously proposed methods for reducing belief polarisation did not work but we were able to find a new method that did. However, this same method could be reversed by adversarial entities to increase belief polarisation. We discuss how this danger can be best mitigated and what theoretical conclusions be drawn from our findings.

What interventions can decrease or increase belief polarisation in a population of rational agents?

Perceptual training leads to improvements in a wide range of simple visual tasks. However, it is still unclear how effective it can be for more difficult visual tasks in real-world domains such as radiology. Is it possible to train people to the level of experts? If so, what method is best, and how much training is necessary? Over four training sessions, we trained medically naive participants to identify the degree of fatty liver tissue present in ultrasound images. We found that both COMPARISON and SINGLE-CASE perceptual training techniques resulted in significant post-training improvement, but that the SINGLE-CASE training was more effective. Whilst people showed rapid learning with less than one hour of training, they did not improve to the level of experts, and additional training sessions did not provide significant benefits beyond the initial session. This suggests that perceptual training could usefully augment, but not replace, the traditional rule-based training that medical students currently receive.

How effective is perceptual training? Evaluating two perceptual training methods on a difficult visual categorisation task

Reasoning beyond available data is a ubiquitous feature of human
cognition. But while the availability of first-hand data typically diminishes
as the concepts we reason about become more complex, our ability to draw
inferences seems not to. We may offset the sparsity of direct evidence by
observing the statements of others, but such social meta-inference comes with
challenges of its own. The strength of socially-provided evidence depends on
multiple factors which themselves must be inferred, like the knowledge, social
goals, and independence of the people providing the data. Here, we present the
results of an experiment aimed at examining how people draw conclusions from
information provided by others in the context of social media posts. By
systematically varying the degree of consensus along with the number of people
and distinct arguments involved we are able to assess how much each factor
affects the conclusions reasoners draw. Across a range of topics we find that
while people are influenced by the number of people on each side of an
argument, the number of posts is the dominant factor driving belief
revision. In contrast to well established findings in simpler domains, we find
that people are largely insensitive to the diversity of the arguments made.

Social meta-inference and the evidentiary value of consensus

T.31: Human-Computer Interaction

technical paper

The 45th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society will take place in Sydney, Australia as a modified hybrid conference. Presentations from the main-session room will be live-streamed every day for all events. This will include all invited talks and award sessions. Recordings of all CogSci 2023 sessions will be made available for on-demand viewing after the conference.<br>
The in-person component will be held at the International Convention Centre Sydney at Darling Harbour. The Conference will take place Wednesday July 26th – Saturday July 29th, 2023 (Wednesday, July 26th is the Workshops Day).

Join us!

<br>[**The Program at a Glance can be found here**](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/COgSci-PAAG-V2.pdf)
<br>[**The Detailed Program can be found here**](https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/mswz/)
<br><br>

#### **CogSci 2023 Program Book**
<iframe style="width:700px;height:400px" src="https://online.fliphtml5.com/ebtyf/tzgk/"  seamless="seamless" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" ></iframe>
<br>

CogSci 2023

The 45th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society presents the latest research across cognitive science and highlights the theme of Cognition in Context.

T.35: Social Cognition 3: Social Learning and Education

Poster Session 2

poster



**For a full list of posters in this session, click the See All link on the right side of the page.**

Poster Session 2 -  A: AI, Computer Science and Computer Models

### Looking for Cogsci 2023? Please [click here](https://underline.io/events/405/reception) to switch to 2023 edition.


**Dear Colleagues,**

Welcome to the 43rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society! 

This year’s conference brings together the latest research from all Cognitive Science and also highlights this year’s theme **Comparative Cognition: Animal Minds.** 

The program features four plenary speakers: Friederike Range (University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna), Onur Güntürkün (Ruhr University Bochum), Julia Fischer (University of Göttingen), and Erich Jarvis (The Rockefeller University). The keynotes and invited symposia showcase the broad spectrum of ideas that encompass the conference theme of comparative cognition. 

Further, the program includes the Rumelhart Prize keynote presentation by Susan Goldin-Meadow (University of Chicago), and symposia to celebrate the winner of the Elman Prize: Wei Ji Ma (New York University), the Heineken Award winner Robert Zatorre (McGill University), and the Robert J. Glushko Dissertation Prizes session.

The program committee for CogSci 2021 received 1,025 submissions, including 710 full papers, 275 member abstracts, 8 publication-based talks, as well as 15 proposals for symposia, and 17 for workshops and tutorials. After a rigorous review process, the committee selected 152 papers for oral presentation and inclusion in the conference proceedings (14.8%), 332 papers for poster presentation and inclusion in the proceedings (32.4%), and 175 papers for poster presentation with inclusion of abstracts in the proceedings (17.1%) We also selected 275 submitted member abstracts. In addition, we accepted 6 publication-based talks, 12 symposia, and 9 workshops and tutorials to make for an exciting and inclusive program.

We hope that you enjoy the conference this year!<br><br>

**Your Program Chairs,**
![](https://assets.underline.io/uploads/markdown_image/1/image/99984908caba5e6453e5fc5ba34f3507.jpg)

**Learn more about the Vienna Cognitive Science Hub at the University of Vienna, hosts of CogSci 2021**

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/464h1m3iU68" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

To review the proceedings for the conference or review the searchable program, please visit the [website](https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/program/).


CogSci 2021

The Cognitive Science Society brings together researchers from around the world who hold a common goal: understanding the nature of the human mind. The mission of the Society is to promote Cognitive Science as a discipline, and to foster scientific interchange among researchers in various areas of study, including Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Anthropology, Psychology, Neuroscience, Philosophy, and Education. The Society is a non-profit professional organization and its activities include sponsoring an annual conference and publishing the journals Cognitive Science and TopiCS.


**For a full list of posters in this session, click the See All link on the right side of the page.**

Poster Session 3 -  C : Cognitive Science


<i>**Session Chair: **Kenny Smith</i><br><br>
<i>**Technical Session Chair: **Merle Kortendieck</i><br><br>
**Session Description: **<br>The session is comprised of 15 minute talks followed by up to 5 minutes of live Q&A time for each presenter. <br>

Andrew Perfors

8

2

Presentations

Self-Censorship Appears to be an Effective Way of Reducing the Spread of Misinformation on Social Media

Inferring the truth from deception: What can people learn from helpful and unhelpful information providers?

Word Prediction in Context: An Empirical Investigation of Core Vocabulary

Testing the Effectiveness of Augmenting Perceptual Training With Annotations and Steps in a Difficult Visual Discrimination Task

Online communication to the ingroup and the outgroup: the role of identity in the “what” and “why” of information sharing

What interventions can decrease or increase belief polarisation in a population of rational agents?

How effective is perceptual training? Evaluating two perceptual training methods on a difficult visual categorisation task

Social meta-inference and the evidentiary value of consensus

Stay up to date with the latest Underline news!

PRESENTATIONS

CONFERENCES

COMPANY

RESOURCES