The Behavioral Inhibition System and Engagement With, and Influence By, COVID-19 and Election-Based Misinformation.

The negative impact of misinformation on public discourse and public safety is increasingly a focus of attention. From the COVID-19 pandemic to national elections, exposure to misinformation has been linked to conflicting perceptions of social, economic, and political issues, which has been found to lead to polarization, radicalization, and acts of violence at the individual and group level. While a large body of research has emerged examining the development and spread of misinformation, little has been done to examine the human processes of being exposed to, and influenced by, misinformation material online. This article uses reinforcement sensitivity theory to examine the effect of individual differences in the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) on the behavioral and cognitive intentions to engage in violence after exposure to misinformation online. Using an online panel sample (Mechanical Turk), and a behavioral study that involved exposure to, and interaction with, misinformation, this study found that trait BIS score impacted how much individuals engaged with misinformation, as well as their ensuing activism and radicalism toward the narratives that were depicted. This study identified that engagement with misinformation impacted intentions for activism and radicalism, as did trait BIS. However, these effects were present for both misinformation and correct information conditions. These findings highlight the importance of BIS-related processes and raise important questions about the degree to which we need to think about online influence as a general process versus specific processes that directly relate to the effect of misinformation.

A Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory of Violent Extremist Propaganda: The Motivational Pathways Underlying Movement Toward and Away From Violent Extremist Action.

Anecdotal evidence supports than engaging with violent extremist content online facilitates the radicalization process. However, there is a consistent lack of empirically grounded research to provide insight into the psychological process through which this influence occurs (if at all). As such, most theories often fail to accommodate both the multifinality (the concept that many people are exposed to violent extremist material, yet never engage in violent extremism), and equifinality (the concept that people can view a range violent extremist content, yet all end up engaging in violent extremism) that naturally is observed in those who engage with violent extremist content online and those who engage in violent extremist behavior. This paper presents Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) as a theoretical framework to inform understanding of the process that governs the interaction between violent extremist material online and engaging with violent extremism. RST is a motivational theory which has been applied to a range of benevolent and deviant behaviors. Specifically, we argue that RST is suitable to explain the effect of violent extremist content online because (1) it outlines multiple differentiated motivational pathways that can account for multifinality and equifinality observed in those who engage in violent extremist behavior and (2) the extant neurological and psychophysiological research using RST provides a empirically supported framework for developing both research methods and verifiable hypotheses to advance our understanding of how, if at all, violent extremist content online contributes to the process of radicalization.

Blood lead levels mediate the relationship between social adversity and child externalizing behavior.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The association between social adversity and externalizing behavioral problems in children is well-documented. What is much less researched are biological mechanisms that may mediate such relationships. This study examines the hypothesis that low blood lead mediates the relationship between social adversity and child externalizing behavior problems. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, participants were 131 children aged 11-12 years (mean = 11.90) from Philadelphia, US. A venous fasting blood sample was taken and analyzed for blood lead levels. A social adversity index was calculated based on 10 total indicators derived from a psychosocial interview of the parent and official neighborhood data, while child behavior outcomes (internalizing and externalizing behavior) were assessed using both parent-report and child self-report. RESULTS: The mean blood lead level was 2.20 µg/dL. Both relatively higher blood lead levels and higher social adversity scores were associated with higher levels of parent-reported and child self-reported externalizing behaviors. Additionally, blood lead mediated the relationship between social adversity and child-reported externalizing behavior (Indirect effect: B = 0.03, 95% CI: 0.004, 0.09) and partially mediated the relationship between social adversity and parent-reported externalizing behavior (Indirect Effect: B = 0.03, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.07). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to suggest that blood lead levels play a mediating role in the relationship between externalizing behavior problems and social adversity. Findings have potentially important implications for public health and environmental regulation as well as understanding biological mechanisms that link social inequality with health outcomes, especially in youth from low-income, urban areas.

Avoidant authority: The effect of organizational power on decision-making in high-uncertainty situations.

Individuals in positions of power are often required to make high-stakes decisions. The approach-inhibition theory of social power holds that elevated power activates approach-related tendencies, leading to decisiveness and action orientation. However, naturalistic decision-making research has often reported that increased power often has the opposite effect and causes more avoidant decision-making. To investigate the potential activation of avoidance-related tendencies in response to elevated power, this study employed an immersive scenario-based battery of least-worst decisions (the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responses; LUCIFER) with members of the United States Armed Forces. In line with previous naturalistic decision-making research on the effect of power, this research found that in conditions of higher power, individuals found decisions more difficult and were more likely to make an avoidant choice. Furthermore, this effect was more pronounced in domain-specific decisions for which the individual had experience. These findings expand our understanding of when, and in what contexts, power leads to approach vs. avoidant tendencies, as well as demonstrate the benefits of bridging methodological divides that exist between "in the lab" and "in the field" when studying high-uncertainty decision-making.

The Effect of a 3-Minute Mindfulness Intervention, and the Mediating Role of Maximization, on Critical Incident Decision-Making.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we extend the impact of mindfulness to the concept of least-worst decision-making. Least-worst decisions involve high-uncertainty and require the individual to choose between a number of potentially negative courses of action. Research is increasingly exploring least-worst decisions, and real-world events (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) show the need for individuals to overcome uncertainty and commit to a least-worst course of action. From sports to business, researchers are increasingly showing that "being mindful" has a range of positive performance-related benefits. We hypothesized that mindfulness would improve least-worst decision-making because it would increase self-reflection and value identification. However, we also hypothesized that trait maximization (the tendency to attempt to choose the "best" course of action) would negatively interact with mindfulness. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-eight participants were recruited using Amazon MTurk and exposed to a brief mindfulness intervention or a control intervention (listening to an audiobook). After this intervention, participants completed the Least-Worst Uncertain Choice Inventory for Emergency Responders (LUCIFER). RESULTS: As hypothesized, mindfulness increased decision-making speed and approach-tendencies. Conversely, for high-maximizers, increased mindfulness caused a slowing of the decision-making process and led to more avoidant choices. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the potential positive and negative consequences of mindfulness for least-worst decision-making, emphasizing the critical importance of individual differences when considering both the effect of mindfulness and interventions aimed at improving decision-making.

Moral medical decision-making: Colliding sacred values in response to COVID-19 pandemic.

In responding to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), health-care workers have been exposed to a range of traumatic experiences, including the management of ventilators; provision of treatment; and issues with access to and the use of personal protective equipment. In this commentary, we use recent research on military decision-making to outline the damaging psychological effects of experiences that violate deeply held values. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).