Phil Higham

Psychology professor at the University of Southampton in the UK. I study memory, metacognition, and categorisation with applications to education and fake news.

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@Sander_vdLinden @danwilliamsphil @ArianaMGalian That was an accident, actually (I spend very little time on Twitter - 11 tweets in 13 years - and was testing the buttons!), but you’re right - it is a good one - as was Dan’s critique ;-)

[Dan Williams @danwilliamsphil]

Is misinformation a dangerous virus? Are we living through an infodemic? Is there a vaccine for misinformation? In this review of Sander van der Linden's (@Sander_vdLinden) new book 'Foolproof', I argue that the answer to these questions is "no". A thread:
https://t.co/15kR6JuVbJ

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

One of the first papers in the area to use ROC analysis. Congrats Ariana!

[Ariana Modirrousta-Galian @ArianaMGalian]

What was once my master's dissertation is now published at JEP:A!

Summary: Both an inductive learning intervention we created and the Bad News game failed to improve news veracity discernment.

Publication link: https://t.co/oHBJYQtEB7
Full text link: https://t.co/mARjGz0Z6K

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@Sander_vdLinden @DG_Rand @ArianaMGalian Is this about true/fake or manipulative yes/no? If true/fake, participants are given a scale like 1 (not at all reliable) to 7 (very reliable): Bad News (2019). Rating a true (credible) item as 1, or a fake item as 7, is referring to your items as fake and true, respectively, no?

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@Sander_vdLinden @DG_Rand @ArianaMGalian Don’t meta-analyses provide a better alternative to cherry picking of this sort? I could likely find evidence that Bad News decreases discernment if I search hard enough for the right study, but it wouldn’t mean much. It’s the overall results that are important, as Ariana states.

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@ArianaMGalian @Sander_vdLinden @DG_Rand Exactly. There is no logical distinction between classifying the items as “true” versus “fake”, “credible” versus “misleading”, or manipulative techniques being “absent” versus “present”, respectively. All three are redundant distinctions in these studies.

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@ProcterGamble 📣 “touching lives, improving life”? More like destroying lives, and also #rainforests while we’re at it. Stop sourcing #conflictpalmoil now!

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@BorisJohnson, I’m outraged that your government would betray animals and the public by dropping the much-anticipated #AnimalsAbroadBill. Fur and foie gras imports must be banned NOW. #QueensSpeech https://t.co/AxlLpL23T1

[Phil Higham @Prof_PhilH]

@KookyChook Herro! So I guess the way we're using this now is no different from text messaging? Is that right? (New to Twitter.)