Communication scholars are increasingly concerned about biases that shape people's interactions with science. Past study has focused on echo chambers (cultivating social networks that reinforce existing worldviews). People's facilitation of scientific discourse between strangers also may be shaped by their attitudes. To study the latter, we employed a recent adaptation of Milgram's lost letter technique called the lost e-mail technique (LET). We conducted a preregistered field study using a large undergraduate university sample (N = 1,508) to examine how the LET might elucidate people's treatment of scientific information. We distributed four ostensibly misaddressed scientific messages and monitored the likelihood of these e-mails being facilitated by participants. Participants' beliefs about self-esteem's importance, assessed months earlier, were associated with increased facilitation of scientific claims congruent with (vs. incongruent with) these beliefs. Thus, people shape the spread of online information in a manner matching their beliefs, even for people outside their social networks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LynkovaD. (2020). The surprising reality of how many emails are sent per day. https://techjury.net/blog/how-many-emails-are-sent-per-day/ (accessed Mar. 29, 2022).
2.
BakshyE, MessingS, AdamicLA. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 2015; 348:1130–1132.
3.
KaakinenM, SirolaA, SavolainenI, et al.Shared identity and shared information in social media: development and validation of the identity bubble reinforcement scale. Media Psychology, 2020; 23:25–51.
4.
ZolloF, BessiA, Del VicarioM, et al.Debunking in a world of tribes. PLoS One, 2017; 12:e0181821.
5.
StroudNJ. Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior, 2008; 30:341–366.
6.
McCroskeyLL, McCroskeyJC, RichmondVP. Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 2006; 54:1–31.
7.
GawronskiB. Back to the future of dissonance theory: cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 2012; 30:652–668.
8.
MilgramS, MannL, HarterS. The lost-letter technique: a tool of social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1965; 29:437–438.
9.
BaskettGD, PeetJG, BradfordD, et al.An examination of the lost-letter technique. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973; 3:165–173.
10.
BernardHR. (2006) Research methods in anthropology. 4th ed. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
11.
MilgramS. Comment on “A failure to validate the lost letter technique.”. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1969; 33:263–264.
12.
BridgesFS, CoadyNP. Urban size differences in incidence of altruistic behavior. Psychological Reports, 1996; 78:307–312.
13.
LiggettL, BlairC, KennisonS. Measuring gender differences in attitudes using the lost-letter technique. Journal of Scientific Psychology, 2010; 16–24.
14.
ShotlandRL, BergerWG, ForsytheR. A validation of the lost-letter technique. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970; 34:278–281.
15.
Van HoofJJ, De VriesPW, KroesJ. Using the lost letter technique to measure real-life behavioral effects of alcohol use. Journal of Substance Use, 2017; 22:42–46.
16.
SternSE, FaberJE. The lost e-mail method: Milgram's lost-letter technique in the age of the Internet. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 1997; 29:260–263.
17.
VaesJ, PaladinoMP, LeyensJP. The lost e-mail: prosocial reactions induced by uniquely human emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2002; 41:521–534.
18.
BickmanL, TegerA, GabrieleT, et al.Dormitory density and helping behavior. Environment and Behavior, 1973; 5:465–490.
19.
BushmanBJ, BonacciAM. You've got mail: using e-mail to examine the effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2004; 40:753–759.
20.
ChampagneAB, GunstoneRF, KlopferLE. Naive knowledge and science learning. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1983; 2:173–187.
21.
DweckCS, LeggettEL. A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 1988; 95:256–273.
22.
WegenerDT, PettyRE. The naive scientist revisited: naive theories and social judgment. Social Cognition, 1998; 16:1–7.
23.
Bahtiyar. (2017). Disadvantages of high self-esteem. http://bahtiyar-world.com/disadvantages-of-high-self-esteem/ (accessed Mar. 29, 2022).
24.
BaumeisterRF, CampbellJD, KruegerJI, et al.Does high self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2003; 4:1–44.
25.
BrandenN. (1995). The six pillars of self-esteem. New York: Bantam Dell Publishing Group.
26.
MeccaAM, SmelserNJ, VasconcellosJ, eds. (1989). The social importance of self-esteem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
27.
TwengeJM, CampbellWK. (2009). The narcissism epidemic: living in the age of entitlement. New York: Free Press.
28.
Vaughan-JohnstonTI, JacobsonJA. “Need” personality constructs and preferences for different types of self-relevant feedback. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 154:109671.
29.
ThomaesS, BrummelmanE, SedikidesC. Why most children think well of themselves. Child Development, 2017; 88:1873–1884.
30.
Vaughan-JohnstonTI, JacobsonJA. Naïve beliefs about self-esteem's importance. Personality and Individual Differences, 2021; 173:110635.
31.
SmithSM, FabrigarLR, NorrisME. Reflecting on six decades of selective exposure research: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2008; 2:464–493.
32.
WesterwickA, KleinmanSB, Knobloch-WesterwickS. Turn a blind eye if you care: impacts of attitude consistency, importance, and credibility on seeking of political information and implications for attitudes. Journal of Communication, 2013; 63:432–453.
33.
AlbarracinD, MitchellAL. The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: how believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 2004; 30:1565–1584.
34.
VisserPS, KrosnickJA, SimmonsJP. Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: a new approach to testing the common-factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003; 39:118–141.
35.
McClellandGH, JuddCM. Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 1993; 114:376–390.
36.
Vaughan-JohnstonTI, JacobsonJA. Naïve beliefs shape emotional reactions to evaluative feedback. Cognition and Emotion,, 2021; 35:375–384.
37.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/ (accessed Mar. 29, 2022).
38.
SunsteinCR. (2018). #republic: divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
RossL, GreeneD, HouseP. The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1977; 13:279–301.
40.
TykocinskiOE, Bareket-BojmelL. The Lost E-Mail Technique: use of an implicit measure to assess discriminatory attitudes toward two minority groups in Israel. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2009; 39:62–81.
41.
DeMarreeKG, WheelerSC, BriñolP, et al.Wanting other attitudes: actual–desired attitude discrepancies predict feelings of ambivalence and ambivalence consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2014; 53:5–18.
42.
BaumeisterRF, VohsKD. Revisiting our reappraisal of the (surprisingly few) benefits of high self-esteem. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2018; 13:137–140.
43.
CialdiniRB. We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2009; 4:5–6.
44.
CoppockA, GreenDP. Assessing the correspondence between experimental results obtained in the lab and field: a review of recent social science research. Political Science Research and Methods, 2015; 3:113–131.
45.
PaluckEL, CialdiniRB. (2014). Field research methods. In Reis H, Judd C, eds. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–97.
46.
LewandowskyS, CookJ, FayN, et al.Science by social media: attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus. Memory & Cognition, 2019; 47:1445–1456.
47.
XuQ, SongY, YuN, et al.Are you passing along something true or false? Dissemination of social media messages about genetically modified organisms. Public Understanding of Science, 2021; 30:285–301.
48.
CinelliM, QuattrociocchiW, GaleazziA, et al.The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports, 2020; 10:1–10.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
