Search

This study explores whether labeling AI as either "trustworthy" or "reliable" influences user perceptions and acceptance of automotive AI technologies. Utilizing a one-way between-subjects design, the research presented online participants (N = 478) with a text presenting guidelines for either trustworthy or reliable AI, before asking them to evaluate 3 vignette scenarios and fill in a modified version of the Technology Acceptance Model which covers different variables, such as perceived ease of use, human-like trust, and overall attitude. While labeling AI as "trustworthy" did not significantly influence people's judgements on specific scenarios, it increased perceived ease of use and human-like trust, namely benevolence, suggesting a facilitating influence on usability and an anthropomorphic effect on user perceptions. The study provides insights into how specific labels affect adopting certain perceptions of AI technology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many visualisations used in the climate communication field aim to present the scientific models of climate change to the public. However, relatively little research has been conducted on how such data are visually processed, particularly from a behavioural science perspective. This study examines trends in visual attention to climate change predictions in world maps using mobile eye-tracking while participants engage with the visualisations. Our primary aim is to assess engagement with the maps, as indicated by gaze metrics. Secondary analyses assess whether social context (as social viewing compared to solitary viewing) affects these trends, the relationship between projection types and visual attention, compare gaze metrics between scientific map and artwork viewing, and explore correlations between self-reported climate anxiety scores and attention patterns. We employed wearable, head-mounted eye-tracking to collect data in relatively naturalistic conditions, aiming to enhance ecological validity. In this research, participants engaged with ten world maps displaying near- and far-term climate projections across five data categories, adapted from the online interactive atlas provided by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To compare scientific information processing with aesthetic perception, participants also viewed two large-scale artworks. Responses to the Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CCAS) were also collected. Participants viewed the displays alone (single-viewing condition, N = 35) or together with a partner (paired-viewing condition, N = 12). Results revealed that the upper parts of the maps, particularly the continental Europe, received significant attention, suggesting a Euro-centric bias in viewing patterns. Spatial gaze patterns were similar between single and paired conditions, indicating that the visual attributes of the maps predominantly shaped attention locations. Although dwell times were comparable, the paired condition showed higher fixation counts, shorter average fixation durations, and longer scanpaths, suggesting a potentially dissociable viewing strategy and more exploratory viewing patterns influenced by social interaction. No substantial differences were observed in attention across projection timeframes or types, although individual variations were noted. Artwork viewing exhibited notably shorter average fixation durations compared to climate map viewing, potentially reflecting different visual engagement styles. Despite positive linear correlations among the four CCAS subscales, there was no apparent correlation between CCAS scores and main gaze metrics, indicating a lack of a direct relationship between self-reported anxiety and gaze behaviour. In summary, visual attention to climate change visualisations appears to be mainly influenced by the inherent visual attributes of the maps, but the social context may subtly influence visual attention. Additionally, the comparison with aesthetic viewing highlights relatively distinct attentional patterns in scientific versus aesthetic engagements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Creating artificial general intelligence is the solution most often in the spotlight. It is also linked with the possibility—or fear—of machines gaining consciousness. Alternatively, developing domain‐specific artificial intelligence is more reliable, energy‐efficient, and ethically tractable, and raises mostly a problem of effective coordination between different systems and humans. Herein, it is argued that it will not require machines to be conscious and that simpler ways of sharing awareness are sufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Humans and other animals possess the remarkable ability to effectively navigate a shared perceptual environment by discerning which objects and spaces are perceived by others and which remain private to themselves. Traditionally, this capacity has been encapsulated under the umbrella of joint attention or joint action. In this comprehensive review, we advocate for a broader and more mechanistic understanding of this phenomenon, termed co‐perception. Co‐perception encompasses the sensitivity to the perceptual engagement of others and the capability to differentiate between objects perceived privately and those perceived commonly with others. It represents a distinct concept from mere simultaneous individual perception. Moreover, discerning between private and common objects doesn't necessitate intricate mind‐reading abilities or mutual coordination. The act of perceiving objects as either private or common provides a comprehensive account for social scenarios where individuals simply share the same context or may even engage in competition. This conceptual framework encourages a re‐examination of classical paradigms that demonstrate social influences on perception. Furthermore, it suggests that the impacts of shared experiences extend beyond affective responses, also influencing perceptual processes. This article is categorized under:Psychology > AttentionPhilosophy > Foundations of Cognitive SciencePhilosophy > Psychological Capacities [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crowdsourcing platforms—such as Vivino—that aggregate the opinions of large numbers of amateur wine reviewers represent a new source of information on the wine market. We assess the validity of aggregated Vivino ratings based on two criteria: correlation with professional critics' ratings and sensitivity to weather conditions affecting the quality of grapes. We construct a large, novel dataset consisting of Vivino ratings for a portfolio of red wines from Bordeaux, review scores from professional critics, and weather data from a local weather station. Vivino ratings correlate substantially with those of professional critics, but these correlations are smaller than those among professional critics. This difference can be partly attributed to differences in scope: Whereas amateurs focus on immediate pleasure, professionals gauge the wine's potential once it has matured. Moreover, both crowdsourced and professional ratings respond to weather conditions in line with what viticulture literature has identified as ideal, but also hint to detrimental effects of global warming on wine quality. In sum, our results demonstrate that crowdsourced ratings are a valid source of information and can generate valuable insights for both consumers and producers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is an introduction to a collection of letters discussing various themes and topics in cognitive science. The letters cover a range of subjects, including pragmatic explanations, grammatical systems, consciousness, social dimensions of cognition, diversity in cognitive science, core aspects of cognition, language and learning, high-level cognition, technology and cognitive science, and more. The document emphasizes the importance of empirical and theoretical substance in the field of cognitive science and invites readers to engage in lively discussion and collaboration. [Extracted from the article]

With restricted face-to-face interactions, COVID-19 lockdowns and distancing measures tested the capability of computer-mediated communication to foster social contact and wellbeing. In a multinational sample (n = 6436), we investigated how different modes of contact related to wellbeing during the pandemic. Computer-mediated communication was more common than face-to-face, and its use was influenced by COVID-19 death rates, more so than state stringency measures. Despite its legal and health threats, face-to-face contact was still positively associated with wellbeing, and messaging apps had a negative association. Perceived household vulnerability to COVID-19 reduced the positive effect of face-to-face communication on wellbeing, but surprisingly, people's own vulnerability did not. Computer-mediated communication was particularly negatively associated with the wellbeing of young and empathetic people. Findings show people endeavored to remain socially connected, yet however, maintain a physical distance, despite the tangible costs to their wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Showing or telling others that we are committed to cooperate with them can boost social cooperation. But what makes us willing to signal our cooperativeness, when it is costly to do so? In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that agents engage in social commitments if their subjective confidence in predicting the interaction partner's behavior is low. In Experiment 1 (preregistered), 48 participants played a prisoner's dilemma game where they could signal their intentions to their co-player by enduring a monetary cost. As hypothesized, low confidence in one's prediction of the co-player's intentions was associated with a higher willingness to engage in costly commitment. In Experiment 2 (31 participants), we replicate these findings and moreover provide causal evidence that experimentally lowering the predictability of others' actions (and thereby confidence in these predictions) motivates commitment decisions. Finally, across both experiments, we show that participants possess and demonstrate metacognitive access to the accuracy of their mentalizing processes. Taken together, our findings shed light on the importance of confidence representations and metacognitive processes in social interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The usual puzzle raised about olfaction is that of a deficit of abstraction: smells, by contrast notably with colours, do not easily lend themselves to abstract categories and labels. Some studies have argued that the puzzle is culturally restricted and that abstraction is more common outside urban Western societies. Here, I argue that the puzzle is misconstrued and should be reversed: given that odours are constantly changing and that their commonalities are difficult for humans to identify, what is surprising is not that abstract terms are rare, but that they should be used at all for olfaction. Given the nature of the olfactory environment and our cognitive equipment, concrete labels referring to sources seem most adaptive. To explain the use and presence of abstract terms, we need to examine their social and communicative benefits. Here these benefits are spelt out as securing a higher agreement among individuals varying in their olfactory experiences as well as the labels they use, as well as feeling a heightened sense of confidence in one's naming capacities. This article is part of the theme issue 'Concepts in interaction: social engagement and inner experiences'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]