William J. Brady
@williambrady.bsky.social
Assistant prof @ Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University. Studying emotion, morality, social networks, psych of tech. #firstgen college graduate
Reposted by William J. Brady
So there you have it, twin study estimates were greatly inflated, and molecular data sets the record straight. I walk through possible counter-arguments, but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.
November 21, 2025 at 10:34 PM
So there you have it, twin study estimates were greatly inflated, and molecular data sets the record straight. I walk through possible counter-arguments, but ultimately the uncomfortable truth is that genes contribute to traits much less than we always thought.
See preprint for more details on (1) development of our taxonomy, (2) how we measured motive inferences in natural language and (3) how our intervention worked!
doi.org/10.31234/osf...
doi.org/10.31234/osf...
OSF
doi.org
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
See preprint for more details on (1) development of our taxonomy, (2) how we measured motive inferences in natural language and (3) how our intervention worked!
doi.org/10.31234/osf...
doi.org/10.31234/osf...
They also show we might be able to people more receptive to political dialogue with a political opponent even when outrage is clearly expressed against people’s own political views.
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
They also show we might be able to people more receptive to political dialogue with a political opponent even when outrage is clearly expressed against people’s own political views.
These results help solve a puzzle (cc @steverathje.bsky.social). Why do people express outrage when reporting they don't want to see it in their feeds? We suggest because when they express it they typically have behavioral motives, but they think others have contra-hedonic motives!
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
These results help solve a puzzle (cc @steverathje.bsky.social). Why do people express outrage when reporting they don't want to see it in their feeds? We suggest because when they express it they typically have behavioral motives, but they think others have contra-hedonic motives!
Key result #3: Motive inferences were malleable: we developed an intervention that corrected peoples’ motive inferences - increasing people’s inference of behavioral motive to out-partisan caused them to be more willing to have a political conversation even in context of outrage
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Key result #3: Motive inferences were malleable: we developed an intervention that corrected peoples’ motive inferences - increasing people’s inference of behavioral motive to out-partisan caused them to be more willing to have a political conversation even in context of outrage
Key result #2: Biased motive inferences predict greater partisan animosity, and specific inferences of behavioral / contra-hedonic motives predicted willingness to have a conversation. 👆 behavioral motive inference = 👆 willingness to converse, even if it was an out-partisan expressing outrage!
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Key result #2: Biased motive inferences predict greater partisan animosity, and specific inferences of behavioral / contra-hedonic motives predicted willingness to have a conversation. 👆 behavioral motive inference = 👆 willingness to converse, even if it was an out-partisan expressing outrage!
Key result #1: People largely reported their in-partisans’ (and their own) motives for outrage was to raise awareness or inspire action (behavioral motive), but thought political opponents motives were to shame or troll (contra-hedonic motive), which was a vast overestimation.
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
Key result #1: People largely reported their in-partisans’ (and their own) motives for outrage was to raise awareness or inspire action (behavioral motive), but thought political opponents motives were to shame or troll (contra-hedonic motive), which was a vast overestimation.
In online experiments and a field study on Reddit, we asked users to report their motives for posting outrage and then had observers infer the motives.
November 11, 2025 at 4:34 PM
In online experiments and a field study on Reddit, we asked users to report their motives for posting outrage and then had observers infer the motives.
Reposted by William J. Brady
Posting is correlated with affective polarization:
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
October 30, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Posting is correlated with affective polarization:
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
😡 The most partisan users — those who love their party and despise the other — are more likely to post about politics
🥊 The result? A loud angry minority dominates online politics, which itself can drive polarization (see doi.org/10.1073/pnas...)
Cool work! Did y'all look at how people update when they discover AI makes an error?
September 30, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Cool work! Did y'all look at how people update when they discover AI makes an error?