Social hierarchies are fundamental in determining the amount of power allotted to identity groups. Currently, we examine the amount of power different sexual identity groups are perceived to be allotted by society versus how much power participants indicate each group should ideally have. Across 2 related studies conducted in 2024, LGBTQIA+ and cishet participants first rank-ordered six (Study 1b) or eight (Study 1a) sexual identity groups into a social hierarchy. Next, participants were asked to assign power to each group based on (a) how much power they feel society gives each group and (b) how much power they feel that each group should ideally have in society. We found differences between how LGBTQIA+ and cishet participants felt power should ideally be distributed and how it actually is distributed. LGBTQIA+ participants, compared with cishet participants, believed that power should be more equally allocated across sexual identity groups, and that society gives significantly more power to those identifying as straight. These findings provide insight into the differences between hierarchy within and outside of the LGBTQIA+ community and increase visibility of marginalized sexual identities. Public Significance Statement This study suggests that cisgender heterosexual individuals seek to maintain their dominant position in their perceived sexual identity hierarchy, whereas LGBTQIA+ individuals advocate for equalizing power. These findings are crucial for informing efforts to empower LGBTQIA+ identities despite their marginalized position and resistance from those in power. Addressing these disparities requires shifting cishet perspectives on power and privilege to foster societal change toward equity.
With implications for investor behavior and perceptions of risk, social media has transformed how individuals obtain financial information. Using restricted 2021 National Financial Capability Study (NFCS) data and a three-step empirical investigation, we find social media use is positively related to fear of financial investment fraud, with financial education positively moderating this relationship. Contrary to expectations, the fear-increasing effect is stronger for those with a financial education background. We propose a “knowledge dilution effect” to explain this paradox: exposure to misinformation and low-credibility financial content on social media may undermine the confidence and protective benefits typically conferred by financial education, amplifying anxiety about fraud. These findings highlight an urgent need to address the quality of online information and to supplement financial education with digital literacy and fraud awareness initiatives in the digital age.
Wildfires are among the most pressing environmental challenges of the 21st century, intensified by the accumulation of forest fuels after a century of fire suppression policies. Although fuel-reduction treatments ("fuel treatments") are a primary tool for reducing wildfire risk, they remain underutilized, partly owing to limited evidence of their economic value. In this study, we integrated high-resolution data on wildfires, fuel treatments, suppression effort, and damages across the Western United States to assess their cost-effectiveness. Using a quasi-experimental design, we found that fuel treatments reduced wildfire spread and severity, avoiding an estimated $2.8 billion in damages by limiting structure loss, cutting carbon dioxide emissions, and lowering fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure. Each dollar invested yielded $3.73 in expected benefits. Our findings demonstrate the value of fuel treatment investments and offer guidance for maximizing their effectiveness.
Concerns that AI homogenizes human thinking appear at odds with findings that LLM writing is perceived as more creative than human writing. We propose that LLMs enhance superficial semantic diversity while simultaneously homogenizing underlying ideas. Four large-scale natural experiments tested this preregistered “disjunctive homogenization” hypothesis in 372,793 personal statements written in high-stakes college admissions contexts. Comparing before-versus-after ChatGPT’s release revealed increasing word-level diversity simultaneous with decreasing conceptual diversity at sentence and whole-document levels. Controlled experiments provided causal evidence of AI’s influence and identified a plausible mechanism: a positive association of word-to-idea diversity in humans was reversed in GPT. Despite conceptual homogenization, raters perceived post-ChatGPT essays as more creative due to increased word-level diversity, even when considering multiple essays. Disjunctive trends were strongest among minoritized applicants.
