Many cases of AI-induced errors and hazards may seem aptly characterized as “overreliance” on automation: people behave as though they complied too willingly with the “suggestions” or “decisions” of AI software. We argue that this terminology often misleads its users about the real causes of such errors, and may lead to ineffective or counterproductive precautions. We point at various reasons why even users who mistrust an AI system are seen to make the kind of mistakes that lead an observer to conjecture “overreliance”. Cognitive, affective, organizational etc. mechanisms that cause apparent compliance with the AI’s outputs may all coexist, requiring analysis of how their effects, and those of precautions against them, compound and interact. We give examples of such alternative explanations for apparent excessive compliance with AI, and of the potential harm if the latter is only blamed on inappropriate user attitudes. To avoid this risk we recommend applying two complementary viewpoints for analysis for such failures of human-AI systems: “diversity”, the extent to which the user, in the human-AI system as implemented, can cope safely with situations in which the AI failed to do so (or vice versa); and “adaptation”, the ways the presence of AI changes (and improves and/or degrades) how people operate; we highlight some factors that cause such changes to reduce AI-human diversity and thus simulate “overreliance”.

Moral decisions are often cast as a conflict between utilitarianism (maximizing good) and deontology (following rules). We propose a unitary psychophysical model where moral decisions operate like other perceptual systems and track the subjective (information-theoretic) certainty that outcomes achieve the greater good. Due to psychophysical noise, decisions are governed by Weber’s law, with utilitarian and deontological responses as high- vs. low-uncertainty limit cases. Participants rated the acceptability of sacrificing fewer ‘victims’ to save more ‘beneficiaries.’ Consistent with this model, acceptability tracked the ratio of beneficiaries to victims (beneficiary:victim Weber ratios), but not utility (net survivors) or harm (victims). With decreased uncertainty (using decisions concerning eco- nomic goods that had clearer values than human lives), responses became more ‘utilitarian’; with increased attention to victims (via emotional manipulations), responses became more ‘deontological’, but always tracked the beneficiary:victim Weber ratios. Frontier large language models from three different jurisdictions (though not smaller models) partially reproduced human behavior, but used qualitatively different heuristics from humans and generally prioritized harm or utility over beneficiary:victim ratios. Beyond moral decision making, the same model provides the first mechanistic and parameter-free explanation of loss-aversion. People, but not machines, thus seek the greater good, but do so under perceptual noise.

Measures of financial literacy are widely used in academic research and also underpin a wide range of governmental policy interventions around the world. Fernandes, Lynch, and Netemeyer created a valid and reliable financial literacy questionnaire in “Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors” which has been widely used and frequently cited. However, we find that ongoing changes to legislation regarding the age at which individuals must start withdrawing from their retirement plans in the US (401k and IRA) have invalidated one of its questions as originally proposed (Question 8). This undermines the validity of the measure and will lead to incorrect usage and misleading inferences if the questionnaire is not updated. We recommend that future researchers exclude this question. We conducted Item Response Theory and comparative analyses across five different datasets covering multiple time points and N=4,959 participants to confirm that the scale remains reliable and measures the same construct without this item. The invalidated question is also specific to the US, and its removal increases the international scope of the measure. We discuss the remaining limitations of this, and similar, financial literacy questionnaires. Despite its limitations, the shorter version of the questionnaire remains a valid scale for measuring financial literacy with an emphasis in investing behavior, with international applicability. Researchers and policy-makers should be aware of the issues raised here when measuring financial literacy or making comparisons across time and across different jurisdictions.

Both gambling and trading involve risk-taking in exchange for potential financial gains. In particular, speculative high-risk high-frequency trading closely resembles disordered gambling behaviour by attracting the same individuals who tend to be overconfident, sensation-seekers, and attracted to quick large potential payoffs. We build on these studies via an incentivised experiment, in which we examine how manipulated levels of market volatility affected trading frequency. Gamblers (N=604) were screened based on the existence of household investments and recruited across the four categories of the Problem Gambling Severity Index. The volatility of stocks was manipulated between-participants (high vs. low). Participants traded fictitious stocks and were provided bonuses based on the results of their trading activity (M=US$4.77, range=[0, 16.99]). Participants traded more often in the high-volatility market, and this finding remained robust after controlling for financial literacy, overconfidence, age, and gender. Many investors trade more frequently than personal finance guides advise, and these results suggest that individuals are more likely to commit this error in more volatile markets. Exploratory analyses suggest that the effect of the volatility manipulation was strongest amongst gamblers who were at low-risk of experiencing gambling harms. As they might be otherwise considered low-risk, these individuals could be overlooked by protective gambling interventions yet nonetheless suffer unmitigated financial harms due to unchecked excessive trading.

The target article 'Risk analysis, uncertainty and innovation: what does this mean for the Dutch energy transition?' advocates dropping use of the precautionary principle, proposing an alternative Tolerability of Risk (ToR) approach to foster both protection and innovation in the face of uncertain risks. Inclusion of stakeholder views and values is a key feature of ToR with fundamental appeal. However the status of public perceptions of risk is contentious. Evaluating and integrating potentially conflicting views into regulatory policy presents significant challenges.

We investigate whether individuals correctly assess the risk of default of annuity providers and incorporate this information into their decision-making when purchasing an annuity. To do so, we analyze actual retirement product choices from a large administrative data set from Chile and exploit an exogenous change that decreased the coverage of government guarantees against annuity provider default. If individuals are rational and properly incorporate default risk into their decision process then, before this change, individuals should choose riskier providers that give higher annuity payments. However, we find that individuals' decisions are not influenced by changes in their protection against the risk of provider default. It seems that individuals have been unnecessarily reducing their annuity payments by not incorporating crucial information about their actual risk exposure to default when selecting annuities at retirement.

Should policymaking assume humans are irrational? Using empirical, theoretical, and philosophical arguments, we suggest a more useful frame is that human behavior is reasonable. Through identifying goals and systemic factors shaping behavior, we suggest that assuming people are reasonable enables behavioral science to be more effective in shaping public policy.

To investigate whether a reported association between flight crew role assignment and accident/incident frequency has persisted subsequent to reforms introduced to address it, we analyze global civil aviation data on 841 accidents and safety critical incidents for the period 2000–2020 resulting in 5318 fatalities. We find that significantly more such events occur, and significantly more fatalities result, when the Captain (Pilot-in-Command) rather than the Co-pilot (Second-in-Command) is acting on the controls as “Pilot Flying” rather than acting as “Pilot Monitoring” – prima facie evidence that the regular combination of command and control (Pilot-in-Command as Pilot Flying) presents a significant systemic safety risk. The yearly proportion of events with the Pilot-in-Command as Pilot Flying significantly increased over 2000–2020. Moreover most (72.2%) events occurred in the absence of any emergency, in technically airworthy aircraft and most (87.9%) were also judgmentally assessed as preventable by the flight crew. Our findings are consistent with accounts of the crew assignment effect that invoke role-dependent status hierarchy effects interfering with effective monitoring and with cognitive overload debilitating the Pilot-in-Command when assigned as the Pilot Flying. We interpret these findings as evidence that measures specifically introduced to implement effective flight crew teamwork, such as Crew Resource Management training, fail to prevent ineffective flight crew teamwork. We consider the implications of our findings for the aviation industry and present options for mitigation and issues for further research.

Measures of financial literacy are widely used in research and underpin a wide range of policy interventions. The authors of “Financial literacy, financial education, and downstream financial behaviors" created a valid and reliable financial literacy questionnaire which has been widely used and frequently cited. However, we find that due to recent changes to legislation, the answer to one of their questions is now incorrect. This undermines the validity of the measure and will lead to incorrect usage if the questionnaire is not revalidated. We recommend that future researchers exclude this question. Item Response Theory analyses across five different datasets covering multiple time points and N=4959 participants were conducted to confirm that the scale remains reliable and measures the same construct without this item. The excluded question is also specific to the US, and its removal increases the international scope of the measure. We discuss the remaining limitations of this questionnaire.

Research suggests that people's experiences of COVID-19 lockdowns have been detrimental to their lives and wellbeing. The current research compared the experiences and perceptions on health, wellbeing and social interaction of 300 UK adults and 450 adults in California. Individuals reported whether aspects of their life had changed for the better, worse, or not at all during lockdown in April 2020, and what the "best" and "worst" things about lockdown were. There were more similarities than differences in the regional comparison of perceptions of changes in specific aspects of 'health and wellbeing' and 'social interaction'. Both regions reported the same number and nature of best and worst things about lockdown. Overarching themes of 'health, self and wellbeing', 'being with others', and 'concerns with daily living' were identified. Although reports of life changes and the positives and negatives of lockdown were similar across different demographic groups, some differences were present by age, sex, relationship, and family-status. Incorporating knowledge of unified and positive experiences of lockdown can be useful in informing future lockdown restrictions and supporting the population when restrictions are lifted.

Gambling advertising is a common feature in international jurisdictions that have liberalized gambling. In the Anglosphere, countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have experienced extensive gambling advertising during the past decade. This advertising is particularly prominent in relation to professional sports and lottery products. More recently, some Canadian provinces and US states have also witnessed a similar rise in gambling advertising. Several European governments, including Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Spain, have more recently restricted gambling advertising and sponsorship in professional sports, but the UK government did not announce any action on gambling advertising and sponsorship in its 2023 White Paper. In September 2023, the UK's Minister for Sport, Gambling and Civil Society addressed a governmental select committee, stating: ‘We have very much gone on the evidence, and there's little evidence that exposure to advertising alone causes people to enter into gambling harm’ [1]. This is consistent with the position of the main UK gambling industry trade body, which frequently states in the media that there is ‘no evidence’ linking gambling advertising to harm [2]. We are a group of stakeholders writing to say that this is a misleading framing of the underlying evidence base. It would be equally true to say that there is no evidence demonstrating gambling advertising's safety. This supposed lack of causal evidence (a point contested by some academics [3]) is simply an absence of evidence due to methodological difficulties inherent to gambling advertising research. Importantly, there is also no evidence of an absence of an effect. People are exposed to gambling advertising in their daily lives, and yet the majority of the research community lacks access to the gambling operator data which could be used to investigate longitudinal relationships [4]. Causality is often best tested for via well-controlled laboratory experiments, and yet no contrived experiment can recreate the experience of being exposed to—and potentially influenced by—gambling advertising during one's daily life. Despite these methodological challenges regarding causality, gambling researchers have assembled a wealth of evidence on other aspects of gambling advertising. Gambling advertising can be highly prevalent, especially around live sport [5, 6]; features certain distinct types of content which use a variety of psychological hooks [5, 6], and is often perceived poorly by its recipients [5, 6]. Research has also linked self-reported advertising exposure and gambling [7-9], especially among disordered gamblers, and linked the use of wagering inducements to gambling behaviour using data from an on-line gambling operator [10]. Evidence also suggests that the safer gambling messages found in many gambling adverts are unlikely to counteract any potential harms from advertising [11, 12]. In time, econometric analyses might be run to test for causal reductions in gambling harm from various governmental restrictions on gambling advertising. Policy decisions regarding gambling advertising should not necessitate evidence of a direct causal link to change the status quo, as those who argue that gambling advertising is safe have not been held to the same evidential standard. None. Philip Newall: Conceptualization (lead); writing—original draft (lead); writing—review and editing (equal). Youssef Allami: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Maira Andrade: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Peter Ayton: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Rosalind Baker-Frampton: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Daniel Bennett: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Matthew Browne: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Christopher Bunn: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Reece Bush-Evans: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Sonia Chen: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Sharon B. Collard: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Steffi De Jans: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Jeffrey L. Derevensky: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Nicki A Dowling: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Simon Dymond: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Andree Froude: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Elizabeth Goyder: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Robert M. Heirene: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Nerilee Hing: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Liselot Hudders: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Kate Hunt: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Richard J.E. James: Writing—review and editing (supporting). En Li: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Elliot Andrew Ludvig: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Virve Marionneau: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Ellen McGrane: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Stephanie S. Merkouris: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Jim Orford: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Alberto Parrado-González: Writing—review and editing (supporting) Robert Pryce: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Matthew Justus Rockloff: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Ulla Romild: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Raffaello Rossi: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Alex Russell: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Henrik Singmann: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Trudy Smit Quosai: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Sasha Stark: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Aino Suomi: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Thomas B. Swanton: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Niri Talberg: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Volker Thoma: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Jamie Torrance: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Catherine Tulloch: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Ruth van Holst: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Lukasz Walasek: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Heather Wardle: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Jane West: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Jamie Wheaton: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Leon Y. Xiao: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Matthew Young: Writing—review and editing (supporting). Maria E. Bellringer: Conceptualization (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Steve Sharman: Conceptualization (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Amanda Druscilla Louise Roberts: Conceptualization (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Philip Newall: Philip Newall is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling—an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain—and in 2020 was a special advisor to the House of Lords Select Committee Enquiry on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry. In the last 3 years, Philip Newall has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, NSW Responsible Gambling Fund and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Philip Newall has received travel and accommodation funding from Alberta Gambling Research Institute and received open access fee funding from Greo Evidence Insights. Youssef Allami: Youssef Allami has received consulting fees from the social responsibility division of a provincial (Crown Corporation) gambling operator in Canada. Maira Andrade: Maira Andrade is a PhD student who was awarded a University of Bristol Scholarship to investigate online gambling with cryptocurrencies. Peter Ayton: N/A. Rosalind Baker-Frampton: Rosalind Baker-Frampton is the research and evaluation lead at Gordon Moody, which has received funding from gambling operators and GambleAware. Daniel Bennett: Daniel Bennett has received research funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Matthew Browne: Matthew Browne has received research funds from the Gambling Research Australia, Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, Queensland Government Department of Health, South Australian Government, Australian Department of Social Services and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Christopher Bunn: In the last 5 years, Chris Bunn has received funding for research relating to gambling from ESRC, NIHR and the British Academy. Reece Bush-Evans: Reece Bush-Evans has received research funding in the last 5 years from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG) and Greo Evidence Insights, and GambleAware. He has received conference travel from AFSG and funding from Aspire Global to deliver a presentation on safer gambling in 2021. Sonia Chen: Sonia Chen works as the principal research advisor at the Ministry of Health New Zealand, leading the gambling harm research programme of the Preventing and Minimising Gambling Harm Strategy. Sharon Collard: Sharon Collard has received funding for gambling harms research from GambleAware, abrdn Financial Fairness Trust, ESRC IAA, The Seafarer's Charity and Gambling Commission regulatory settlement funds. She is a member of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research. Steffi De Jans: N/A. Jeffrey Derevensky: Jeffrey Derevensky has received funding from a number of governmental bodies and gambling operators. Nicki A. Dowling: In the last 3 years, Nicki A. Dowling has received research funding from multiple sources, including the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling, Tasmanian Department of Treasury and Finance, Gambling Research Australia, Swedish Gambling Research Council, Health Research Council of New Zealand and New Zealand Ministry of Health. She has been the recipient of a Deakin University Faculty of Health Mid-Career Fellowship. She has not knowingly received research or consultancy funding from the gambling, tobacco or alcohol industries or any industry-sponsored organisation. Simon Dymond: Simon Dymond has received funding from GambleAware, Gambling Commission (regulatory settlements), Greo Evidence Insights, Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG) and International Center for Responsible Gaming. Simon Dymond is a founding member of the AFSG Executive Committee. He is the director of the Gambling Research, Education and Treatment (GREAT) Network Wales, which is funded by Welsh Government through Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW). The views expressed are those of the author/s and not necessarily those of HCRW or Welsh Government. Andree Froude: N/A. Elizabeth Goyder: N/A. Robert M. Heirene: Robert Heirene has worked on a project funded by Responsible Wagering Australia (a representative body of Australian online wagering operators; 2019–2021) and as an independent, sub-contracted statistical consultant for PRET Solutions Inc. on a commissioned project (funded by an Australian Casino operator; 2023). Nerilee Hing: In the last 5 years, Nerilee Hing has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling; South Australian Government; Gambling Research Australia; Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety; New Zealand Ministry of Health; Australian Communications and Media Authority; and the Alberta Gambling Research Institute. Liselot Hudders: N/A. Kate Hunt: N/A. Richard J. E. James: Richard James has been principal investigator on grants funded by Greo Evidence Insights and the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG), and co-investigator on a grant funded by the International Center for Responsible Gaming. The funds for the grants from Greo Evidence Insights and AFSG were sourced from regulatory settlements levied by the UK Gambling Commission. The ICRG is funded by charitable donations sourced from the American gaming industry and administered by an independent scientific panel. En Li: In the last 5 years, En Li has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Elliot A. Ludvig: N/A. Virve Marionneau: In the last 5 years, Virve Marionneau has received funding from the Academy of Finland, Finnish Ministry of Health and Welfare, and Finnish Foundation for Alcohol Studies. Ellen McGrane: N/A. Stephanie S. Merkouris: In the last 3 years, Stephanie Merkouris has received research funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, Health Research Council of New Zealand and New Zealand Ministry of Health. She is currently the recipient of a New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling Postdoctoral Fellowship. She has not knowingly received research or consultancy funding from the gambling, tobacco or alcohol industries or any industry-sponsored organisation. Jim Orford: N/A. Alberto Parrado-González: N/A. Robert Pryce: N/A. Matthew Rockloff: In the last 5 years, Matthew Rockloff has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling; South Australian Government; Gambling Research Australia; New Zealand Ministry of Health; Australian Communications and Media Authority; and the Alberta Gambling Research Institute. Ulla Romild: Ulla Romild is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling, an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain, and a member of the Svenska Spel Research Board, an independent group in charge of distributing research funds from Svenska Spel. Raffaello Rossi: Raffaello Rossi has received funding from ESRC, GambleAware, UK Gambling Commission and Action Against Gambling Harms. He is member of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research. Alex M. T. Russell: In the last 5 years, Alex M. T. Russell has received funding from Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation; New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling; South Australian Government; Gambling Research Australia; New Zealand Ministry of Health; Australian Communications and Media Authority; and the Alberta Gambling Research Institute. He has had travel expenses paid to present research by the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, PsychMed and the Hawthorn Hawks Football Club Players Association. He has received an honorarium from Movember for assessing applications for funding and consulting fees from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. He declares no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript. Henrik Singmann: N/A. Trudy Smit Quosai: Trudy Smit Quosai is the CEO of Greo Evidence Insights. Greo Evidence Insights has received funds in the last 3 years from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Canada), social responsibility arms of Canadian state monopolies with responsibility to conduct and manage gambling (Canada), non-profits, charities, and post-secondary institutions (Canada), regulatory settlement funds (Great Britain), third-sector charities (Great Britain) and other international regulators. Sasha Stark: Sasha Stark is the Director of Research and Evidence Services at Greo Evidence Insights. Greo Evidence Insights has received funds in the last 3 years from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Canada), social responsibility arms of Canadian state monopolies with responsibility to conduct and manage gambling (Canada), non-profits, charities, and post-secondary institutions (Canada), regulatory settlement funds (Great Britain), third-sector charities (Great Britain) and other international regulators. In the last 2 years in her previous role at the Responsible Gambling Council, Sasha Stark worked on projects funded by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (Canada), Carleton University (Canada), iGaming Ontario (Canada), Greo Evidence Insights (Canada/Great Britain), the International Center for Responsible Gaming (US), MGM Resorts International (US), GambleAware (Great Britain) and Playtech (Great Britain). Aino Suomi: Aino Suomi has received funding from multiple sources, including Australian Federal and State/Territory government departments including the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and the ACT Gambling and Racing Commission (through hypothecated taxes from gambling revenue). She has not received direct funding from the gambling industry. Thomas B. Swanton: In the last 3 years, Thomas Swanton has received a PhD scholarship through the NSW Government's Gambling Research Capacity Grants program, funded by the NSW Responsible Gambling Fund, and supported by the NSW Office of Responsible Gambling. He has received student travel grants from the National Association for Gambling Studies. Niri Talberg: Niri Talberg is a board member of The Nordic Society Foundation For Information About Problem Gambling (SNSUS) and Norwegian Association On Gambling And Gaming Problems (NFSP). Volker Thoma: Volker Thoma is a former member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (ABSG)—one of his PhD students has received a PhD stipend from GambleAware. Jamie Torrance: In the last 3 years, Jamie Torrance has received (1) PhD funding from GambleAware, (2) open access publication funding from Greo Evidence Insights, (3) paid consultancy fees from Channel 4, (4) conference travel and accommodation funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG) and (5) a minor exploratory research grant from the ASFG and Greo Evidence Insights. Catherine Tulloch: In the last 5 years, Catherine Tulloch has received funding from the New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and has contributed to research projects funded by Gambling Research Australia. Ruth J. van Holst: N/A. Lukasz Walasek: Lukasz Walasek received funding from the Greo Evidence Insights and the Academic Forum for the Study Gambling (AFSG). Heather Wardle: In the last 5 years, HW has received funding for gambling-related projects from the National Institute for Health Research, Economic and Social Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Office of Health Improvements and Disparities, Public Health England, Gambling Commission (including from regulatory settlements), Gambling Research Exchange Ontario, Greater London Authority, Greater Manchester Combined Authority, and the Department for Culture Media and Sport. In 2018/19 HW has received funding from GambleAware for a project on gambling and suicide. HW declares consultancy fees from the Institute of Public Health, Ireland and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research; payment for her role as deputy chair of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling, remunerated by the Gambling Commission; payment as an expert witness on gambling by Lambeth and Middlesborough Borough Councils; payment for delivery of a webinar by McGill University. She has provided unpaid advice on research to GamCare; has received support for travel from the Turkish Green Crescent Society, Gambling Regulators European Forum, and Alberta Gambling Research Institute; is a member of the WHO Panel on gambling; and runs a research consultancy practice for public and third sector bodies. HW has not, and does not, provide services to the gambling industry. Jane West: Jane West is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling. Jamie Wheaton: Jamie Wheaton has received funding from GambleAware and is a member of the Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms Research. He has also received seedcorn funding from the British Academy for conference travel. Leon Y. Xiao: Leon Y. Xiao is supported by a PhD Fellowship funded by the IT University of Copenhagen (IT-Universitetet i København), which is publicly funded by the Kingdom of Denmark (Kongeriget Danmark). He was employed by LiveMe, then a subsidiary of Cheetah Mobile (NYSE:CMCM), as an in-house counsel intern from July to August 2019 in Beijing, People's Republic of China. He was not involved with the monetisation of video games by Cheetah Mobile or its subsidiaries. He undertook a brief period of voluntary work experience at Wiggin LLP (Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) number: 420659) in London, England in August 2022. He has contributed and continues to contribute to research projects that were enabled by data access provided by the video game industry, specifically Unity Technologies (NYSE:U) (October 2022–present). He has met and discussed policy, regulation and enforcement with the Belgian Gaming Commission [Belgische Kansspelcommissie] (June 2022 & February 2023), the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority [Konkurrence- og Forbrugerstyrelsen] (August 2022), the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and its successor of the UK Government (August 2022 & August 2023), PEGI (Pan-European Game Information) (January & March 2023), a member of the European Parliament (February 2023), the US Federal Trade Commission (February 2023), the Finnish Gambling Administration at the National Police Board [Poliisihallituksen arpajaishallinto/Polisstyrelsens lotteriförvaltning] (March 2023), the Danish Gambling Authority [Spillemyndigheden] (April 2023), the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets [Autoriteit Consument & Markt] (May & June 2023) and the Swedish Gambling Authority [Spelinspektionen] (June 2023). He has been invited to provide advice to the DCMS on the technical working group for loot boxes and the Video Games Research Framework. He was the recipient of two AFSG (Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling) Postgraduate Research Support Grants that were derived from ‘regulatory settlements applied for socially responsible purposes’ received by the UK Gambling Commission and administered by Greo Evidence Insights (March 2022 & January 2023). He has accepted funding to publish academic papers open access from Greo Evidence Insights that was received by the UK Gambling Commission as above (October, November, & December 2022). He has accepted conference travel and attendance grants from the Socio-Legal Studies Association (February 2022 & February 2023); the Current Advances in Gambling Research Conference Organising Committee with support from Greo Evidence Insights (February 2022); the International Relations Office of The Jagiellonian University (Uniwersytet Jagielloński), the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (NAWA; Narodowa Agencja Wymiany Akademickiej), and the Republic of Poland (Rzeczpospolita Polska) with co-financing from the European Social Fund of the European Commission of the European Union under the Knowledge Education Development Operational Programme (May 2022); the Society for the Study of Addiction (November 2022 & March 2023); and the organisers of the 13th Nordic SNSUS (Stiftelsen Nordiska Sällskapet för Upplysning om Spelberoende; the Nordic Society Foundation for Information about Problem Gambling) Conference, which received gambling industry sponsorship (January 2023). He has received an honorarium from the Center for Ludomani for contributing a parent guide about a mobile game for Tjekspillet.dk, which is funded by the Danish Ministry of Health's gambling addiction pool (Sundhedsministeriets Ludomanipulje) (March 2023). The up-to-date version of his conflict-of-interest statement is available via: https://sites.google.com/view/leon-xiao/about/conflict-of-interest. Matthew M. Young: Matthew Young is Chief Research Officer at Greo Evidence Insights. Greo Evidence Insights has received funds in the last 5 years from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Canada), non-profits, charities and post-secondary institutions (Canada). Greo Evidence Insights has also received funds from social responsibility arms of Canadian crown corporations (i.e., state monopolies) that conduct and manage provincial/territorial gambling, regulatory settlement funds (Great Britain), third-sector charities (Great Britain) and international regulators. He was employed for 12 years by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, which received funding from the Government of Canada. Maria Bellringer: Maria Bellringer has received research funding in the last 5 years from the New Zealand Ministry of Health, Health Research Council of New Zealand and Homecare Medical (NZ) Ltd Partnership. She has received consultancy funding from Health New Zealand and Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, and travel and related expenses from the Japan Academy of Integrated Resorts and Gambling Studies. She is a member of the Lotto NZ Responsible Gaming and Corporate Social Responsibility Voluntary Stakeholder Panel—she does not receive financial reimbursement for this role. Steve Sharman: Steve Sharman is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling (ABSG)—an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain—and is a member of the Executive Committee for the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG). He is also co-chair of the AFSG Outreach committee and a founder member of the Current Advances in Gambling Research (CAGR) conference committee. Funding for the AFSG and CAGR is derived from regulatory settlements for socially responsible purposes that are approved by the Gambling Commission and is administered by Greo Evidence Insights. His research is currently funded by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship and, in the last 3 years, has received research funding from the Circle U Seed Funding, the UEL Research Internship Scheme, SSA Academic Fellowship and the King's Prize Fellowship. He has also received honoraria from Taylor Francis Publishing and RANGES Early Career Network. Amanda Roberts: Amanda Roberts is the co-chair of the Executive Committee of the Academic Forum for the Study Gambling (AFSG). Funding for the AFSG is derived from regulatory settlements for socially responsible purposes that are approved by the Gambling Commission and is administered by Greo Evidence Insights. Amanda Roberts has received funding from the Society for the Study of Addiction (SSA), Greo Evidence Insights, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Lincolnshire County Council, Ashfield District Council, Health and Care Research Wales, Public Health Lincoln and Santander. She does not have any potential conflicts of interest in relation to gambling or the gambling industry.

Pension trustees make surrogate decisions on behalf of scheme members. However, prior research has not explored how this might affect pension adequacy. Our results show that when setting targets for pension replacement income, trustees project their own preferences instead of reflecting member preferences. Furthermore, projection was more pronounced for trustees with lower financial literacy. Trustees choose significantly higher pension replacement rates for members than members choose for themselves. Trustees also choose replacement rates higher than current benchmarks. The economic consequences are potentially considerable, due to high levels of pension contributions and incompatible risk-taking. A better understanding of the dynamics of decisions made by trustees is needed to ensure better member outcomes.

In many places commemorative plaques are erected on buildings to serve as historical markers of notable men and women who lived in them – London has a Blue Plaque scheme for this purpose. We investigated the influence of commemorative Blue Plaques on the selling prices of London real estate. We identified properties which sold both before and after a Blue Plaque was installed indexing prices relative to the median prevailing sales prices of properties sold in the same neighborhood. Relative prices increased by 27% (US$165,000 as of July 2020) after a Blue Plaque was installed but not in a control set of properties without Blue Plaques, sold both before and after a Blue Plaque was installed in close proximity. We discuss these findings in relation to the theory of magical contagion and claims from previous research suggesting that people are less likely to acknowledge magical effects when decisions involve money.

For over 30 years, prevalence surveys have been the principal methodology for measuring the distribution of gambling-related harm in a population (Volberg, 2004), and have informed debates around whether existing harm reduction efforts are working, both in the academic literature (Shaffer et al., 2004) and in the news (Davies, 2022). Despite this longevity, prevalence surveys have been subject to critical perspectives throughout their use (Doughney, 2007; Nadler, 1985; Roberts et al., 2022; Young, 2013). Here we note that current estimated UK prevalence rates reported in 2022 vary from 0.2% (Gambling Commission, 2022) to 2.8% (Gunstone et al., 2022), which is a level of uncertainty. Previous work suggests that the mode of conducting these surveys can cause some differences, with online rates being higher than in-person (Sturgis & Kuha, 2022), and mobile phone rates being higher than landline (Dowling et al., 2016). This is likely responsible for part of the differential, with the 0.2% rate being from a phone survey and the 2.8% rate being from an online survey. Here we show how part of this differential is due to another methodological artefact: the choice of problem gambling screener.

When deciding where to invest, individuals choose mutual funds based on recent past performance, despite standard mandated disclaimers that "past performance does not guarantee future results." Investors would receive better long-term returns by choosing funds with lower fees. We explored the impact of fees and past performance on realistic mutual fund selections across three preregistered repeated choice experiments (N=1,600), while manipulating the presence of disclaimers between-participants. Participants persistently chased past performance despite the opportunity to learn about the futility of this strategy during sixty repeated decisions with feedback. The standard regulatory-mandated disclaimer did not help most participants, compared to giving no advice at all, and was even counter-productive for participants with low levels of financial literacy. An alternative disclaimer which explicitly highlighted the advantages of fee minimization reliably helped participants. We show how individuals who lack both financial literacy and prior investment experience are the most susceptible to making poor mutual fund choices, and can benefit the most from behavioral interventions such as the new disclaimer tested here. We discuss how these results generalize into real-world investment decisions, and how to design more efficient disclaimers that can be used beyond investment choices.

EDITORIAL article Front. Psychol., 30 August 2021Sec. Cognition Volume 12 - 2021 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.745941

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a novel threat and traditional and new media provide people with an abundance of information and misinformation on the topic. In the current study, we investigated who tends to trust what type of mis/information. The data were collected in Norway from a sample of 405 participants during the first wave of COVID-19 in April 2020. We focused on three kinds of belief: the belief that the threat is overrated (COVID-threat skepticism), the belief that the threat is underrated (COVID-threat belief) and belief in misinformation about COVID-19. We studied sociodemographic factors associated with these beliefs and the interplay between attitudes to COVID-19, media consumption and prevention behavior. All three types of belief were associated with distrust in information about COVID-19 provided by traditional media and distrust in the authorities' approach to the pandemic. COVID-threat skepticism was associated with male gender, reduced news consumption since the start of the pandemic and lower levels of precautionary measures. Belief that the COVID-19 threat is underrated was associated with younger age, left-wing political orientation, increased news consumption during the pandemic and increased precautionary behavior. Consistent with the assumptions of the theory of planned behavior, individual beliefs about the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat predicted the extent to which individual participants adopted precautionary health measures. Both COVID-threat skepticism and COVID-threat belief were associated with endorsement of misinformation on COVID-19. Participants who endorsed misinformation tended to: have lower levels of education; be male; show decreased news consumption; have high Internet use and high trust in information provided by social media. Additionally, they tended to endorse multiple misinformation stories simultaneously, even when they were mutually contradictory. The strongest predictor for low compliance with precautionary measures was endorsement of a belief that the COVID-19 threat is overrated which at the time of the data collection was held also by some experts and featured in traditional media. The findings stress the importance of consistency of communication in situations of a public health threat.

Objective: To investigate whether performance (number of correct decisions) of humans supported by a computer alerting tool can be improved by tailoring the tool's alerting threshold (sensitivity/specificity combination) according to user ability and task difficulty. Background: Many researchers implicitly assume that for each tool there exists a single ideal threshold. But research shows the effects of alerting tools on decision errors to vary depending on variables such as user ability and task difficulty. These findings motivated our investigation. Method: Forty-seven participants edited text passages, aided by a simulated spell-checker tool. We experimentally manipulated passage difficulty and tool alerting threshold, measured participants' editing and dictation ability, and counted participants' decision errors (false positives + false negatives). We investigated whether alerting threshold, user ability, task difficulty and their interactions affected error count. Results: Which alerting threshold better helped a user depended on an interaction between user ability and passage difficulty. Some effects were large: for higher ability users, a more sensitive threshold reduced errors by 30%, on the easier passages. Participants were not significantly more likely to prefer the alerting threshold with which they performed better. Conclusion: Adjusting alerting thresholds for individual users' ability and task difficulty could substantially improve effects of automated alerts on user decisions. This potential deserves further investigation. Improvement size and rules for adjustment will be application-specific. Application: Computer alerting tools have critical roles in many domains. Designers should assess potential benefits of adjustable alerting thresholds for their specific CAT application. Guidance for choosing thresholds will be essential for realizing these benefits in practice.