Conspiracy theories can be repeatedly encountered, which raises the issue of the effect of their repeated exposure on beliefs. Earlier studies found that repetition increases truth judgments of factual statements, whether they are uncertain, highly implausible, or fake news, for instance. Would this “truth effect” be observed with conspiracy statements? If so, is the effect size smaller than the typical truth effect, and is it associated with individual differences such as cognitive style and conspiracy mentality? In the present preregistered study, we addressed these three issues. We asked participants to provide binary truth judgments to conspiracy and factual statements already displayed in an exposure phase (an interest judgment task) or new (displayed only in the truth judgment task). We measured participants’ cognitive style with the 3-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), and conspiracy mentality with the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ). We found that repetition increased truth judgments of conspiracy theories, unmoderated by cognitive style and conspiracy mentality. The truth effect was smaller with conspiracy theories than with uncertain factual statements. The results suggest that repetition may be a simple way to increase belief in conspiracy theories. Whether repetition increases conspiracy beliefs in natural settings and how it contributes to conspiracism compared to other factors are important questions for future research.

Conspiracy theories can be encountered repeatedly, which raises the issue of the effect of their repeated exposure on beliefs. Earlier studies found that repetition increases truth judgments of factual statements, whether they are uncertain, highly implausible, or fake news, for instance. Would this "truth effect" be observed with conspiracy statements? If so, is the effect size smaller than the typical truth effect, and is it associated with individual differences such as cognitive style and conspiracy mentality? In the present preregistered study, we addressed these three issues. We asked participants to provide binary truth judgments to conspiracy and factual statements already displayed in an exposure phase (an interest judgment task) or that were new (displayed only in the truth judgment task). We measured participants' cognitive style with the three-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), and conspiracy mentality with the Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire (CMQ). Importantly, we found that repetition increased truth judgments of conspiracy theories, unmoderated by cognitive style and conspiracy mentality. Additionally, we found that the truth effect was smaller with conspiracy theories than with uncertain factual statements, and suggest explanations for this difference. The results suggest that repetition may be a simple way to increase belief in conspiracy theories. Whether repetition increases conspiracy beliefs in natural settings and how it contributes to conspiracism compared to other factors are important questions for future research.

Handing-over objects to humans (or taking objects from them) is a key capability for a service robot. Humans are efficient and natural while performing this action and the purpose of the studies on this topic is to bring human-robot handovers to an acceptable, efficient and natural level. This paper deals with the cues that allow to make a handover look as natural as possible, and more precisely we focus on where the robot should look while performing it. In this context we propose a user study, involving 33 volunteers, who judged video sequences where they see either a human or a robot giving them an object. They were presented with different sequences where the agents (robot or human) have different gaze behaviours, and were asked to give their feeling about the sequence naturalness. In addition to this subjective measure, the volunteers were equipped with an eye tracker which enabled us to have more accurate objective measures.

The domain of human-robot Joint Action is a growing field where roboticists, psychologists and philosophers start to collaborate in order to devise robot abilities that are as efficient and convenient for the human partner as possible. Besides studying Joint Action and developing algorithms and schemes to control the robot and manage the interaction, one of the current challenges is to come up with a method to properly evaluate the progresses made by the community. Several questionnaires have already been proposed to the community that deal with the evaluation of humanrobot interaction. However, these studies mainly concern either specific basic behaviors during Joint Action or human-robot interactions without effective physical Joint Action. When it comes to high level decisions during physical human-robot Joint Action, there are fewer contributions to the topic, and also, the methods to evaluate them are even rarer. The aim of this paper is to propose a reusable questionnaire PeRDITA (Pertinence of Robot Decisions In joinT Action) allowing us to evaluate the pertinence of high level decision abilities of a robot during physical Joint Action with a human.

The complementary role of static and dynamic information used when one needs to be located in time was studied. Static information refers to temporal knowledge about days of the week, and dynamic information reflects a sense of time, taking into account the present, the near past, and the future. Each day of an actual 7-day wk., 699 women and 620 men were asked to provide a "right" or "wrong" response to a statement such as "Today is X," where X was the name of one of the seven days of the week. Analysis suggested use of a structured temporal representation of the week: the weekend, a landmark, had an anchoring role. Also the dynamics of the content of working memory were indicated. The active "temporal window" participants hold in mind seems directed more towards the future than the past. Results are discussed within the more general context of time management.