Cited by 289Misinformation and Its ImpactsEpistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who We Trust and What We Believe

Open access
Mercier, Hugo·2020·Social Forces

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/sf/soaa040

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Mercier, H.
Corresponding author
Mercier, Hugo
Venue
Social Forces
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
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