Gagliardi, L. (2023). The role of cognitive biases in conspiracy beliefs: A literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12604 - Available here, open access

Abstract:

In recent years, several studies have found that conspiracy believers tend to be more susceptible to cognitive biases (e.g., conjunction fallacy, proportionality bias, agency detection bias, etc.). The aim of this work is to review such literature, systematizing these concepts in a unifying framework of conspiracy mentality as a set of biased cognitive processes, which categorizes cognitive biases in two classes: those that contribute to belief formation and those that contribute to belief updating. Drawing on several empirical results, this paper summarizes the role of cognitive biases in conspiratorial thinking, offering some insights for future research and raising questions about the possible weaknesses of this approach.

Keywords: Conspiracy Theories, Cognitive Biases, Behavioral Economics, Decision-Making

Gagliardi L., (2024). Naturalness seeking minds: the cognitive foundations of naturalness bias in consumer food choice

Available at SSRN.

Currently under review.

Abstract:
Naturalness bias refers to a tendency to favor products that are perceived as natural over synthetic or industrial goods. This bias has been observed in various product categories, including drugs, food and cosmetics. Although previous research has primarily focused on identifying the different motives underlying this preference, there is limited understanding of the cognitive foundations of this bias which remains undertheorized. The present paper seeks to address this gap by theoretically framing the phenomenon in terms of a by-product of representativeness heuristic, which involves estimating the likelihood that an object belongs to a category based on its similarity to a pre-existing prototype. In this context, judging the naturalness of a product entails comparing it to a set of stereotyped attributes of “naturalness". Among these, we discussed the role of aesthetic randomness and unusual colors/shapes as possible cues of naturalness, with a specific focus on the role of cosmetic imperfections and abnormalities. A better theoretical understanding of how naturalness bias develops may have practical implications to develop consumer education campaigns and mitigate food waste.

Keywords: Naturalness bias, Representativeness heuristic, Cognitive biases, Consumer choice, Food

Gagliardi L., Rusconi M. (2023). Investigating conspiracy beliefs: methodological biases and experimental challenges.

Available at SSRN.

Winner of the Young Scholar Awards at the International Network for Economic Methodology (INEM 2023)

Currently under R&R

Abstract:

In recent years several studies have investigated conspiracy beliefs employing correlational designs which heavily relied on self-reported measures. While the limitations of surveys are well-known, we argue that risks of social desirability bias and survey spillover effects are peculiarly high for conspiracy studies where scales are often built on explicit conspiracy cues that may trigger stigmatization and/or priming effects, resulting in beliefs misreporting. These limitations call for a shift towards a laboratory-based methodology, but a survey-free experimental paradigm has not emerged yet; and it might be for good reasons. In fact, there is something inherently contradictory in studying conspiracy beliefs, as the subject of the study itself is anti-scientific. In the light of this contradiction, this paper’s aim is two-fold: first, we will review the limitations of self-reported measures for studying conspiracy beliefs; second, we will discuss the challenges of investigating such an ambiguous phenomenon in an experimental setting.

Keywords: Conspiracy theories; Methodological biases; Experimental methods; Experimental economics; Methodology; Epistemology

Gagliardi, L., (2024). Conspiracy beliefs and preference for natural drugs: a survey study.

Available at ResearchGate

Currently submitted

Abstract:

Naturalness bias describes the tendency to systematically favor goods which are perceived as natural over their conventional counterparts. Previous research has found that such preference is based on a large set of variables, including perceived risks and safety. In this survey study, we focus on the link between such tendency and conspiracy beliefs, highlighting how false narratives may provide plots to rationalize and justify consumer preferences in the domain of drug choices. Such justification lies in a Manichean view of medicine which depicts the industry as an evil agent hiding the truth about natural remedies and/or providing less effective, or sometimes dangerous, alternatives for their own profit. We address such topic by investigating preference for natural drugs and belief in conspiracy theories by using three different validated measures. We found that preference for natural drugs over synthetic drugs is positively predicted by generic conspiracy beliefs (i.e., GCBS), conspiracy mentality (i.e., CMQ) and endorsement of specific conspiracy theories (i.e., BCTI), with a specific focus on theories about health and control of information. Policy implications of such associations are discussed.

Keywords: Naturalness bias; Conspiracy theories; Conspiracy beliefs; Medical decision-making;

Gagliardi, L., (2024). Naturalness bias for drugs and vaccines and its relation to representativeness heuristic

Available at ResearchGate

Currently submitted

Naturalness bias describes the tendency to systematically favor goods which are perceived as natural over their conventional counterparts. Previous research has discussed possible cognitive accounts that may explain such pattern (e.g., affect heuristic), but literature is still scarce on its relation to other cognitive biases or processes from which this bias may stem from. In this paper, we specifically focus on representativeness heuristic (i.e., a mental shortcut to assess the probability of an object or event being representational of a pre-stored prototype in its essential features) and the cognitive biases which result from relying on this reasoning process. In two studies employing four measures of susceptibility to cognitive biases and two different tasks to measure preference for naturalness, we found that susceptibility to misperception of randomness (i.e., over-estimating the representativeness of a small sample) is associated with naturalness bias in drugs, but it positively predicts acceptance of vaccines regardless of their naturalness. We also found that susceptibility to conjunction fallacy is associated with lower perceptions of safety and effectiveness of synthetic vaccines compared to natural ones. Policy and theoretical implications are discussed.

Keywords: Naturalness bias; Cognitive biases; Heuristics; Misperception of randomness; Conjunction fallacy; Gambler’s fallacy; Behavioral economics.

Gagliardi, L., (2024). Trusting the unproven: the role of self-medication in homeopathic treatment perceptions.

Available at ResearchGate

Currently submitted

Self-medication in homeopathy poses significant risks to users' health by bypassing the essential role of physicians in diagnosis and treatment. This study investigates how self-medication practices and trust in non-professional sources (e.g., pharmacists, peers, self-research) shape users' perceptions of homeopathic treatment effectiveness and associated risks. In this survey we presented to a sample of homeopathic products users (N = 151) with a new hypothetical homeopathic product and measured their expectations of its effectiveness. Results show that trust in pharmacists and subjective norms significantly influence expectations, with self-medicating users showing higher expected effectiveness and lower risk perceptions related to consuming homeopathic products. Conversely, users who regularly consult a CAM professional or are guided by homeopaths in treatment selection exhibit lower expectations and increased risk perceptions related to consumption of homeopathic products. These findings underscore the importance of professional guidance in homeopathic treatments and the potential dangers of misinformation from non-professional sources.

An experimental investigation on intentionality and proportionality biases in conspiracy beliefs. Draft available soon.

with A. Gamba (University of Insubria)

Abstract:

Conspiracy theories (CTs) are attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event as a secret plot by a covert alliance of powerful individuals or organizations, rather than as an overt activity or random occurrence. The strongest finding in literature is that believing one CT usually predict endorsement of many others, which has led many to theorize the existence of a conspirational mindset (i.e., a set of heuristic cognitive processes that make individuals more susceptible to cognitive biases, which in turn have been found to correlate with conspiracism). In this study we focus on proportionality bias (PB) and intentionality bias (IB). We argue that CTs are explanations that are based on a judgement made by considering the proportionality in size between causes and consequences (i.e., big causes for big events - PB), and by assessing how likely it is that a certain outcome is due to intentional behaviors rather than randomness (IB). For this purpose, we designed a communication game (Conspirator Game) in which two Senders are incentivized to create in a Receiver an erroneous belief to increase their own payoffs at the expense of the other side by sending each a misleading, costless message. Then, Receiver must complete an urn task by making the right guess based on what she has been suggested, in two conditions: a baseline condition, with regular payoffs; a proportional condition, with higher stakes. Receiver only knows that there’s an equal probability of 50% that the messages were sent by humans or by a computer which chooses randomly. We argue that (H.1) when a Receiver who holds a conspiracy mentality gets a couple of identical messages, she will over-attribute such coincidence to intentional behaviors (human players) over randomness (randomizing computer) (IB), in both conditions. Moreover, we argue that (H.2) higher stakes will positively influence the likelihood that the intentionality over-perception will take place (PB).

Keywords: Conspiracy theories, Game theory, Experimental economics, Cognitive biases