These findings show that elderly individuals benefit from the memory-enhancing effects of curiosity. This may lead to the implementation of learning strategies that target and stimulate curiosity in aging.

Background/Study Context: Recent studies have shown that young adults better remember factual information they are curious about. It is not entirely clear, however, whether this effect is retained during aging. Here, we investigated curiosity-driven memory benefits in young and elderly individuals. Methods: In two experiments, young (age range 18-26) and older (age range 65-89) adults read trivia questions, and rated their curiosity to find out the answer. They also attended to task-irrelevant faces presented between the trivia question and the answer. We then administered a surprise memory test to assess recall accuracy for trivia answers, and recognition memory performance for the incidentally-learned faces.Results: In both young and elderly adults, recall performance was higher for answers to questions that elicited high levels of curiosity. In Experiment 1 we also found that faces presented in temporal proximity to curiosity-eliciting trivia questions were better recognized, indicating that the beneficial effects of curiosity extended to the encoding of task-irrelevant material. Conclusions: These findings show that elderly individuals benefit from the memory-enhancing effects of curiosity. This may lead to the implementation of learning strategies that target and stimulate curiosity in aging.

Background Communicating scientific uncertainty about public health threats such as COVID-19 is an ethically desirable task endorsed by expert guidelines on crisis communication. However, the communication of scientific uncertainty is challenging because of its potential to promote ambiguity aversion—a well-described syndrome of negative psychological responses consisting of heightened risk perceptions, emotional distress, and decision avoidance. Communication strategies that can inform the public about scientific uncertainty while mitigating ambiguity aversion are a critical unmet need. Objective This study aimed to evaluate whether an “uncertainty-normalizing” communication strategy—aimed at reinforcing the expected nature of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic—can reduce ambiguity aversion, and to compare its effectiveness to conventional public communication strategies aimed at promoting hope and prosocial values. Methods In an online factorial experiment conducted from May to June 2020, a national sample of 1497 US adults read one of five versions of an informational message describing the nature, transmission, prevention, and treatment of COVID-19; the versions varied in level of expressed scientific uncertainty and supplemental focus (ie, uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial). Participants then completed measures of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations of ambiguity aversion (ie, perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19, COVID-19 worry, and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and vaccination). Analyses assessed (1) the extent to which communicating uncertainty produced ambiguity-averse psychological responses; (2) the comparative effectiveness of uncertainty-normalizing, hope-promoting, and prosocial communication strategies in reducing ambiguity-averse responses; and (3) potential moderators of the effects of alternative uncertainty communication strategies. Results The communication of scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic increased perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19, consistent with ambiguity aversion. However, it did not affect intentions for risk-reducing behaviors or vaccination. The uncertainty-normalizing strategy reduced these aversive effects of communicating scientific uncertainty, resulting in levels of both perceived likelihood of getting COVID-19 and worry about COVID-19 that did not differ from the control message that did not communicate uncertainty. In contrast, the hope-promoting and prosocial strategies did not decrease ambiguity-averse responses to scientific uncertainty. Age and political affiliation, respectively, moderated the effects of uncertainty communication strategies on intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors and worry about COVID-19. Conclusions Communicating scientific uncertainty about the COVID-19 pandemic produces ambiguity-averse cognitive and emotional, but not behavioral, responses among the general public, and an uncertainty-normalizing communication strategy reduces these responses. Normalizing uncertainty may be an effective strategy for mitigating ambiguity aversion in crisis communication efforts. More research is needed to test uncertainty-normalizing communication strategies and to elucidate the factors that moderate their effectiveness.

Purpose Communicating about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and efficacy is crucial for promoting transparency and informed decision-making, but there is limited evidence on how to do so effectively. Design A within-subjects experiment. Setting Online survey from January 21 to February 6, 2021. Subjects 596 US Veterans and 447 non-Veterans. Intervention 5 messages about COVID-19 vaccine side effects and 4 messages about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. Measures COVID-19 vaccine interest (1 = “I definitely do NOT want the vaccine” to 7 = “I definitely WANT the vaccine” with the midpoint 4 = “Unsure”). Confidence about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy (1= “Not at all confident,” 2 = “Slightly confident,” 3 = “Somewhat confident,” 4 = “Moderately confident,” 5 = “Extremely confident”). Results Compared to providing information about side effects alone ( M = 5.62 [1.87]), messages with additional information on the benefits of vaccination (M = 5.77 [1.82], P < .001, dz = .25), reframing the likelihood of side effects (M = 5.74 [1.84], P < .001, dz = .23), and emphasizing that post-vaccine symptoms indicate the vaccine is working (M = 5.72 [1.84], P < .001, dz = .17) increased vaccine interest. Compared to a vaccine efficacy message containing verbal uncertainty and an efficacy range ( M = 3.97 [1.25]), messages conveying verbal certainty with an efficacy range ( M = 4.00 [1.24], P = .042, dz=.08), verbal uncertainty focused on the upper efficacy limit ( M = 4.03 [1.26], P < .001, dz = .13), and communicating the point estimate with certainty ( M = 4.02 [1.25], P < .001, dz = .11) increased confidence. Overall, Veteran respondents were more interested ( M Veterans = 5.87 [1.72] vs M NonVeterans = 5.45 [2.00], P < .001, d = .22) and confident ( M Veterans = 4.13 [1.19] vs M NonVeterans = 3.84 [1.32], P < .001, d = .23) about COVID-19 vaccines than non-Veterans. Conclusions These strategies can be implemented in large-scale communications (e.g., webpages, social media, and leaflets/posters) and can help guide healthcare professionals when discussing vaccinations in clinics to promote interest and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

This paper explores the nature and impact of research misconduct in psychology by analyzing 160 articles that were retracted from prominent scholarly journals between 1998 and 2017. We compare findings with recent studies of retracted papers in economics, and business and management, to profile practices that are likely to be problematic in cognate social science disciplines. In psychology, the principal reason for retraction was data fabrication. Retractions took longer to make, and generally were from higher ranked and more prestigious journals, than in the two cognate disciplines. We recommend that journal editors should be more forthcoming in the reasons they provide for article retractions. We also recommend that the discipline of psychology gives a greater priority to the publication of replication studies; initiates a debate about how to respond to failed replications; adopts a more critical attitude to the importance of attaining statistical significance; discourages p-hacking and Hypothesizing After Results are Known (HARKing); assesses the long-term effects of pre-registering research; and supports stronger procedures to attest to the authenticity of data in research papers. Our contribution locates these issues in the context of a growing crisis of confidence in the value of social science research. We also challenge individual researchers to reassert the primacy of disinterested academic inquiry above pressures that can lead to an erosion of scholarly integrity.