Subsurface engineering projects with high socio-environmental impacts raise strong controversies among stakeholders, which often affects the projects’ implementation. These controversies originate from a loss of public confidence in the decision-making process, lack of information about new technologies, and the desire of some promoters to avoid conflict. The lack of methodologies to structure each stage of the debate can, in this context, lead to the crystallization of the stakeholders’ positions and to the failure of the project. To promote mutual understanding and constructive exchanges, this article presents a combination of methods based on psychosocial engineering principles to support debate and encourage stakeholders to participate with an openness posture. The method is based on a set of studies conducted as part of the “Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering” project and includes three stages: (1) develop stakeholders’ knowledge so that they are able to participate in the debate with an informed viewpoint; (2) commit stakeholders to participate in the debate by adopting a posture conducive to constructive exchanges; and (3) structure exchanges between stakeholders through the use of cooperative methods facilitating the adoption of an openness posture.

Dematerialized negotiations are increasing and tend to foster deceptive exchanges, while also limiting the ability to detect signs of deception. We therefore tested whether it was possible to deter negotiators from producing deceptive statements in the first place, by manipulating the mental conflict of lying (Dissonance factor) and increasing the perceived risk of being disbelieved if lying (Risk factor). A total of 458 participants were recruited online and placed in a buyer/supplier email negotiation scenario in one of eight experimental groups, manipulating the Dissonance factor (using, or not, a “you have the reputation of being honest and trustworthy” pro-social labeling technique), and Risk factor (three price levels of an alleged alternative offer and a control group). They were ultimately, as suppliers, asked their own purchasing price by the buyer—a highly sensitive piece of information. Results showed that the proportion of participants giving a true price in response to the question of their own purchasing price was significantly higher when they were exposed to our deception deterrence factors. Of the participants who did not dodge the question entirely, 38.1

When tasked with recalling a heard conversation, most individuals are unable to remember specific details. In this study, we tested the effect of Verbatim Recall Instruction (VRI) at recall. Drawing on fuzzy-trace theory, we hypothesised that the use of VRI would lead earwitnesses to use their verbatim mnesic trace to produce a more detailed recall. We compared the quantity and the quality of 42 recalls from participants who had received the VRI or the Free Recall Instruction (FRI). We analysed the level of detail of participants’ recall along a fuzzy to verbatim continuum. Results showed that participants having received a VRI recalled information that was more correct and closer to the original phrasing. However, differences in procedure make the VRI difficult to compare with other studies. Methodological differences are accordingly discussed. Findings suggest that VRI encourages the recollection of verbatim traces, in turn benefiting the recall of detailed elements of a conversation. These findings support fuzzy-trace theory.

IntroductionStrokes leave around 40% of survivors dependent in their activities of daily living, notably due to severe motor disabilities. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) have been shown to be efficiency for improving motor recovery after stroke, but this efficiency is still far from the level required to achieve the clinical breakthrough expected by both clinicians and patients. While technical levers of improvement have been identified (e.g., sensors and signal processing), fully optimized BCIs are pointless if patients and clinicians cannot or do not want to use them. We hypothesize that improving BCI acceptability will reduce patients' anxiety levels, while increasing their motivation and engagement in the procedure, thereby favoring learning, ultimately, and motor recovery. In other terms, acceptability could be used as a lever to improve BCI efficiency. Yet, studies on BCI based on acceptability/acceptance literature are missing. Thus, our goal was to model BCI acceptability in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke, and to identify its determinants.MethodsThe main outcomes of this paper are the following: i) we designed the first model of acceptability of BCIs for motor rehabilitation after stroke, ii) we created a questionnaire to assess acceptability based on that model and distributed it on a sample representative of the general public in France (N = 753, this high response rate strengthens the reliability of our results), iii) we validated the structure of this model and iv) quantified the impact of the different factors on this population.ResultsResults show that BCIs are associated with high levels of acceptability in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke and that the intention to use them in that context is mainly driven by the perceived usefulness of the system. In addition, providing people with clear information regarding BCI functioning and scientific relevance had a positive influence on acceptability factors and behavioral intention.DiscussionWith this paper we propose a basis (model) and a methodology that could be adapted in the future in order to study and compare the results obtained with: i) different stakeholders, i.e., patients and caregivers; ii) different populations of different cultures around the world; and iii) different targets, i.e., other clinical and non-clinical BCI applications.

1. Par norme, nous entendons, comme la plupart des psychologues sociaux, une régularité de jugement ou de comportement transindividuelle.

Gambling is a field of study that has grown since the 2000s. Much research has focused on adolescents and youth as a vulnerable population. The rate of aging gamblers is increasing; however, evidence-based knowledge of this population is still too sparse. After introducing the issue (1), this article provides a narrative review of older adults' gambling through three sections: (2) older adult gamblers (age, characteristics, and motivations), (3) gambling as a risky decision-making situation, and (4) gambling disorder related to older adults. By drawing on the existing literature from a problematization perspective, this type of review can highlight complex and original research topics and provoke thought and controversy to generate avenues for future research. This narrative review provides an overview of the existing literature on gambling among older adults and offers perspectives on how aging can affect decision-making and thus gambling for this population. Older adults are a specific population, not only in terms of the consequences of gambling disorders but also in terms of the motivations and cognitions underlying gambling behaviors. Studies on behavioral science focusing on decision-making in older adults could help in the development of public policy in terms of targeted prevention.

After laying down a few markers aimed at distinguishing between what comes under research ethics (which concerns the participant in the research and even society) and what comes under scientific integrity (i.e. the researcher's deontology), an argument is developed concerning the implosion of the peer review process, The argument is made about the implosion of the peer review process, which is a pillar of the functioning of science, as well as about the minor deviations of authors in plagiarism and self-plagiarism, which are indeed a problem of scientific integrity, albeit of moderate importance, but of great significance. An analysis is made of the structural reasons for these various problems; solutions are proposed around the idea of a radical rebalancing in the evaluation of researchers between their scientific production activities and their activities in evaluating the articles and research projects of their peers.

Nanotechnologies are a controversial topic, as they seem promising but also cause concern. Previous research has highlighted the potential link between nanotechnologies and other hazardous technologies. The aim of this research was to analyse the discourse on this topic by three groups of participants: laypersons, scientists and environmentalists. Thirty-four people (13 laypersons, ten scientists and eleven environmentalists) were interviewed using a semi-structured interview. Lexical and thematic analyses showed that scientists engage in explanatory discourse and perceive fewer risks than laypersons and environmentalists. The latter two groups describe applications and list the main actors in the development of nanotechnologies. Environmentalists are significantly more likely to make spontaneous associations with other technologies, such as electromagnetic waves, and perceive more risks than the other two groups. Contrary to our expectations, laypersons make fewer associations with biotechnologies than experts or environmentalists. The results are discussed in terms of the interest of a qualitative approach to uncovering new objects spontaneously associated with nanotechnologies, as well as in terms of a risk governance framework.

Most deception research provides between-subject results (e.g., liars give on average less detailed accounts), which might be of limited value for professionals evaluating credibility on an individual basis. This study examines the optimal instructions of a within-subject multiple recalls strategy to detect deception. A total of 110 participants, divided into a Lie and Truth group, were randomly placed into four interview conditions: two Basic report-everything instructions (1), a Basic recall followed by an Open depth instruction (2), a Basic recall followed by the Verifiability Approach and Information Protocol (3), and two recalls with the Verifiability Approach and Information Protocol (4). All recalls were coded for total details and verifiable details. Group (lie and truth) x Recall (first and second) was only significant in condition 3, with truth tellers providing more verifiable details in the second recall than the first. A simple within-subject decision rule was derived, allowing a 76.9% discrimination rate. Professionals can optimally evaluate credibility using two recalls (Basic recall followed by Verifiability Approach and Information Protocol) and observing the evolution of verifiable details.

The own-group recognition bias (OGRB) has been consistently linked to social contact in theoretical accounts. Indeed, social contact is assumed by most authors to underlie the perceptual expertise of out-groups' faces. However, little is known empirically about how it might impact face-processing strategies. We tested the proposition that social interaction would improve the face recognition performance of another group by modulating visual strategies for different face areas. In Experiment 1, we studied visual processes using an eye tracker during a person's first live encounter with a particular member of their own group (European) or an outgroup (African) to explore how increasing familiarity during a first interaction influences face-processing strategies. In Experiments 2 and 3, we explored the effect of simulated intergroup contact on face recognition accuracy, while simultaneously studying the impact of contact on visual attention strategies that occur during recognition (Experiment 2) and encoding (Experiment 3). The results showed a strong OGRB and a difference in visual processes based on the ethnic group of the targets. Although a single interaction is not sufficient to reduce the OGRB, familiarization during a live interaction (Experiment 1) and virtual social contact (Experiment 2) had an impact on the visual strategies employed.

The general theory of deception (GTD) aims to unify and complete the various sparse theoretical units that have been proposed in the deception literature to date, in a comprehensive framework fully describing from end to end the process by which deceptive messages are produced, and how this can inform more effective prevention and detection. As part of the elaboration of the theory, the different ways people elaborate deceptive messages were first tracked by the authors daily, over 3 years, resulting in the identification, description, and naming of 99 "elementary deception modes" (87 verbal, 12 nonverbal) that can all be combined during one deceptive episode, thus leading to a total estimate of 10(30) different ways to lie. Central to the GTD is the "five forces model," explaining precisely at which times deceptive messages occur and what factors compete to determine the types of messages that are most likely to be produced (truthful, refusal to answer, or deceptive-and with which deception modes). Finally, the process by which deceptive messages come to mind and are compared, both against each other and against the option of disclosing the truth, given memory's capacity and time limits, has been described in the form of a dynamic, continuous, and testable algorithm called the "deception decision algorithm" (DDA). The practical insights derived from this new disruptive theory of lie production are discussed and a theory-based lie prevention and detection enhancement method is introduced.

Identifying a suspect is critical for successful criminal investigations. Research focused on two decision processes during lineup identification, namely 'automatic recognition' and 'elimination' strategy, and their relation to identification accuracy. In this article, we report two experiments conducted in France and South Africa, which further examine strategies in eyewitness decision-making. We first used a modified-RSA (Retrospective Self Awareness; Kassin, 1985) interview method to construct questionnaires to have finer-grained measures of cognitive processes involved in lineup identification. Studies 1 and 2 tested the relevance of the questionnaire in each of the countries, and factor analysis yielded three common factors among the countries, namely the expected 'automatic recognition', and 'elimination' strategies, as well as an additional familiarity related factor. Logistic regressions showed that witnesses who reported using a familiarity feeling and/or an 'elimination strategy' to conduct their decision, were less likely to make correct decisions than witnesses who reported using 'automatic recognition'.

The research Ethics Committees (RECs) give authorization, after ethical assessment, to conduct research involving human participants, whether or not the research is for medical purposes. In France, a distinction is made between research aimed at increasing medical or biological knowledge (examined by the Committees for the Protection of Human Research Participants) and non-medical research on humans. The CERs, which are grouped in a federation of RECs. The French RECs conduct an ethical examination of the research, in particular from the point of view of the protection of participants, but do not give authorization to conduct the research it has examined. The importance of RECs is not without criticism from the researchers concerned: hegemonism, normalization, control or even censorship of research, waste of time, etc. The appropriateness of these criticisms is examined and the value of the RECs in promoting honest and responsible research is argued.