Skip to main content

The Science


The research behind this piece isn't cherry-picked. These are peer-reviewed studies. Some of them have been cited thousands of times.  They have independently arrived at the same conclusion: skepticism is a defense mechanism, not a personality flaw.



Dietvorst, Simmons & Massey  (2015). "Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms After Seeing Them Err." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033


The foundational paper on how quickly human trust collapses after a machine makes a single visible mistake. Even when participants watched an algorithm outperform a human repeatedly, they still chose the inferior human option once they'd seen the algorithm err. Cited over 4,000 times. The data behind the argument that seeing the machine clearly changes everything.



Dillard & Shen (2005). "On the Nature of Reactance: An Empirical Assessment of Four Conceptualizations."  Communication Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815


The classic framework proving that psychological reactance, the human urge to push back when something tries to control you, is both emotional and cognitive at the same time. When you feel manipulated, you get angry and you start arguing against it in your head. Both responses reinforce each other. This is the science underneath the Mental Firewall.




Steindl et al.  (2015). "Understanding Psychological Reactance: New Developments and Findings." Zeitschrift für Psychologie. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222


A comprehensive review of how perceived threats to personal freedom trigger measurable, defiant behavioral overrides. Cited over 800 times. Reinforces the Dillard & Shen framework with updated findings,  the more clearly a person identifies an external system trying to limit their choices, the harder they push back.




Boerman et al.  (2023). "Consumers' Persuasion Knowledge of Algorithms in Social Media Advertising." International Journal of Advertising. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2023.2264045


Surveyed 450 users and sorted them into four groups based on their awareness of algorithmic persuasion. The largest group, called the "Control Paradox", knew they were being manipulated but felt powerless to stop it. The smallest group, "Skilled and Critical," had both the awareness and the coping tools to act on it. The gap between those two groups is exactly what this project is trying to close.




Metzler & Garcia (2023). "Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media." Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057


A research overview documenting how platform algorithms are optimized for corporate ad revenue rather than user wellbeing, and how the feedback loop between human behavior and algorithmic curation is largely invisible to the people inside it. Makes the predatory mechanics argument in peer-reviewed form without sensationalism, just data.




Gagrčin, Naab & Grub (2024). "Algorithmic Media Use and Algorithm Literacy: An Integrative Literature Review." New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241291137


A 2024 review of the research on algorithm literacy interventions and how they translate into real behavioral change. Distinguishes between users who merely "know"about algorithms and users who can actually act on that knowledge — and finds the gap between the two is where most literacy efforts fail. The reclamation argument in academic language.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

They Built the Park Now They're Hiding in the Kitchen

  There is a scene in Jurassic Park that seems spot on for our situation, where the algorithm is concerned.  The chaos theorist, the one who was right from the beginning is played by Jeff Goldblum. He sits across from the park's creator and says "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." Hammond waves it off. He's proud. He built something extraordinary. The miracle is real. The problems are manageable. Then the raptors get out. Remind you of anything. I have been watching the AI companies with their press releases and TED talks. The carefully worded statements about safety and responsibility and the tremendous potential for human flourishing. The interviews where the founders look just slightly haunted by uncertainty. They look like they heard something moving around in the dark outside the building. The miracle is real. They built it. It works. And now they are in the kitchen, backs against th...
Post a Comment
Read more

This Is Intentional

  You may have noticed, this blog is plain. No images or dramatic design. No visual chosen to make you feel something before you've read a word. That's intentional. Everything here argues that the tools used to hold your attention online are engineered to activate your feelings before you form a thought. It would be strange to make that argument on a website doing the same thing. What you'll find here is words, questions, and the occasional uncomfortable fact. What you do with them is up to you. The store is on Gumroad rather than Amazon. Amazon is optimized. Every element of it is designed to keep you there, show you more, and convert your attention into a purchase. It is very good at this. Gumroad is not optimized. It has the slightly unfinished feel of the early internet, back when a website was just someone putting something they made in front of people who wanted it. No algorithm. No sponsored results. No system studying your behavior to figure out what to show you ne...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Figured Fast Food Out, We'll Figure This Out Too.,

  In 2004 Morgan Spurlock ate McDonald's three times a day for thirty days and filmed what happened to his body. Super Size Me was a sensation. Disturbing, funny, impossible to look away from. It won awards. It changed conversations. McDonald's quietly retired the Supersize option shortly after it came out. A year later a woman named Soso Whaley did the same experiment differently. She ate McDonald's every day for a month too. She counted calories, made reasonable choices, and lost weight doing it. You probably haven't heard of her. Her documentary didn't go anywhere. Not because she was wrong. She wasn't wrong. But because a person making informed choices and coming out fine is not a story. It doesn't have an arc. Nobody needs to be saved. The audience has nowhere to put their anxiety. We are wired for the dramatic version. The cautionary tale. The before and after. The thing that is killing us. Here is what actually happened with fast food over the next tw...
Post a Comment
Read more