The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe
Open accessAbstract
I have often heard friends and colleagues ask the question “why do people vote against their own interests?” Implicit in this question is a view that people are gullible, easily persuaded not just by political propaganda, but also hucksters, prone to fake news, and any number of scams. That is, that people are too trusting. In his book Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe, Hugo Mercier takes the opposite view—the problem is not that humans are too trusting but that we are not trusting enough. Drawing on his own and others’ work, Mercier argues that as a hypersocial species humanity has evolved a suite of cognitive mechanisms to weed out when information from others is unreliable. In the first part of the book, Mercier considers the evidence for the case that people are utterly gullible: the Asch conformity experiments, proliferation of fake news, the phenomenon of flat-earthers, among evidence from other experiments and case studies. The second part of the book is spent on documenting the cognitive mechanisms that enable us to be open to information from others and filter unreliable communication. Mercier argues these mechanisms work well in small scale collectives, but have adapted poorly to our contemporary large-scale, complex societies. He rounds out the book with an argument that rather than gullibility being our utmost concern, it is cynicism that holds societies back from enjoying the benefits of cooperation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The effects of political advertising are small and will likely remain so, regardless of whether they are (micro)targeted or not, because persuasion is difficult.
“In general, the effects of political advertising are small and will likely remain so, regardless of whether they are (micro)targeted or not, because persuasion is difficult (Coppock, 2023; Mercier, 2020).”
From Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown (2023) · cites this paper as Mercier, 2020
The copy’s “SUMARIO 5” section describes Mercier’s account of resistance to persuasion and failures of political propaganda, supporting the claim that persuasion is difficult. It does not address microtargeting or predict that the effects of political advertising will remain small regardless of targeting. No page number is supplied for the passage. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown
Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-127 · Cited by 85
Self-citationHow Effective Are Interventions Against Misinformation?
Altay, S. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/sm3vk · Cited by 32
Levy, N. (2021) · Bad Beliefs · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192895325.003.0005 · Cited by 2
Demystifying Multi-Agent Debate: The Role of Confidence and Diversity
Zhu, X., Zhang, C., Chi, Y., Stafford, T., Collier, N., & Vlachos, A. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1694 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Mercier, H.
- Corresponding author
- Mercier, Hugo
- ORCID
- Mercier, Hugo
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-04-30
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e23-e23
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-7605
- OpenAlex
- W3003738006
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 24
- FWCI
- 68.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- centraldesociologia.cl
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Forces (publishedVersion)
- Revista Central de Sociología (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- trust, gullibility, belief formation, social cognition, information filtering, fake news, flat Earth belief, cognitive mechanisms, large-scale societies, cynicism, cooperation, cognitive evolution
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review