No abstract

No abstract

The health and economic outcomes of the COVID-19 pandemic will in part be determined by how effectively experts can communicate information to the public and the degree to which people follow expert recommendation. Using a survey experiment conducted in May of 2020 with almost 5,000 respondents, this paper examines the effect of source cues and message frames on perceptions of information credibility in the context of COVID-19. Each health recommendation was framed by expert or non-expert sources, was fact- or experience-based, and suggested potential gain or loss to test if either the source cue or framing of issues affected responses to the pandemic. We find no evidence that either source cue or message framing influence people’s responses—instead, respondents’ ideological predispositions, media consumption, and age explain much of the variation in survey responses, suggesting that public health messaging may face challenges from growing ideological cleavages in American politics.

In the past few decades an increasing number of investigators have examined how emotions are communicated through facial expression, speech prosody, and language in nonclinical and brain-damaged populations. Disorders of emotional communication (often referred to as affective processing disorders) are commonly associated with brain damage. These disorders include difficulty with expressing and perceiving emotional information, regulating emotions in communicative interactions, and demonstrating sensitivity to the emotional expressions of communicative partners. The purposes of this article are to: (1) describe "normal" affective communication; (2) review disorders in affective expression, perception, and regulation; (3) discuss the modality of facial expression and disorders of affective facial expression; and (4) present some informal tools for assessing affective processing.

There are a number of observed gender differences in the frequency of political discussion, perceived levels of expertise, and importantly, openness to persuasion. This article explores the consequences of these differences for political choices. Given the difficulty in separating influence from homophily with observational data, this paper relies on a group-based experiment. Results suggest that when selecting between candidates, women are more likely to accept information from others, even if the information in the signals is not helpful. Men, on the other hand, often ignore outside signals in favor of sticking with their own choices even when outside signals would be helpful to their decision-making. A reanalysis of a previously published experiment on social communication leads to similar gender differences.