Information Manipulation Theory 2 (IMT2) is a propositional theory of deceptive discourse production that conceptually frames deception as involving the covert manipulation of information along multiple dimensions and as a contextual problem-solving activity driven by the desire for quick, efficient, and viable communicative solutions. IMT2 is rooted in linguistics, cognitive neuroscience, speech production, and artificial intelligence. Synthesizing these literatures, IMT2 posits a central premise with regard to deceptive discourse production and 11 empirically testable (that is, falsifiable) propositions deriving from this premise. These propositions are grouped into three propositional sets: intentional states (IS), cognitive load (CL), and information manipulation (IM). The IS propositions pertain to the nature and temporal placement of deceptive volition, in relation to speech production. The CL propositions clarify the interrelationship between load, discourse, and context. The IM propositions identify the specific conditions under which various forms of information manipulation will (and will not) occur.

This study documents an investigation into the adoption and diffusion of eave tubes, a novel mosquito vector control, during a large-scale scientific field trial in West Africa. The diffusion of innovations (DOI) and the integrated model of behavior (IMB) were integrated (i.e., innovation attributes with attitudes and social pressures with norms) to predict participants’ (N = 329) diffusion intentions. The findings showed that positive attitudes about the innovation’s attributes were a consistent positive predictor of diffusion intentions: adopting it, maintaining it, and talking with others about it. As expected by the DOI and the IMB, the social pressure created by a descriptive norm positively predicted intentions to adopt and maintain the innovation. Drawing upon sharing research, we argued that the descriptive norm may dampen future talk about the innovation, because it may no longer be seen as a novel, useful topic to discuss. As predicted, the results showed that as the descriptive norm increased, the intention to talk about the innovation decreased. These results provide broad support for integrating the DOI and the IMB to predict diffusion and for efforts to draw on other research to understand motivations for social diffusion.

Media coverage of health issues has been criticized for creating health stigmas. The model of stigma communication (MSC, Smith, 2007) provides insights into why this is so, but it has two problems: Some of its mediators have not been supported, and it does not do a good job of predicting the transmission of stigma messages (i.e., social transmission). We present a revised model of stigma message effects in which exposure to stigma messages leads to stigma beliefs and stigmatization as a result of a person-oriented danger appraisal. In addition, message judgments-shock value and common ground-are introduced as mediators of the relationship between danger appraisal and social transmission. Participants (N = 200) were randomly assigned to read a health story written either with or without the intrinsic features of stigma messages. The revised model of stigma-message effects was supported: Reading a health news story written with (vs. without) the intrinsic features of stigma messages resulted in greater danger appraisal, which directly predicted stigma-related outcomes and indirectly predicted social transmission through message judgments. Social transmission varied by message judgment: Shocking messages were shared in ways that facilitate diffusion, but common ground messages were shared with influential others, suggesting different means by which stigma as a collective norm may emerge from interactions among community members.

Two studies investigated why vegan stigma occurs and why people who eat meat are often unaccepting of vegans. Study 1 measured vegan stigma based on Link and Phelan’s (2001) model and proposed that the communal food hypothesis provides a partial explanation for vegan stigma. Study 1 revealed that labeling is the most salient dimension of vegan stigma, and being able to share food with others was important to participants, which might explain why vegans are stigmatized. Study 2 explored how pro- and antivegan messages induced emotional response to veganism and the roles of argument strength and depth of message processing in perception of stigma. Study 2 found that anger and discomfort were strong moderators between messages, argument strength, and stigma response. Together these studies provide evidence to explain why vegans are stigmatized.

No abstract