Strategic Communication Under Model Uncertainty: How Effectively Can Narrators Persuade Skeptical Receivers?

核心概念

In strategic communication, where senders have incentives to manipulate information, skeptical receivers who are aware of these incentives limit the sender's persuasive power, but surprisingly, this skepticism may not always be in the receiver's best interest.

摘要

Bauch, G., & Foerster, M. (2024). Strategic communication of narratives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23259v1.

This paper examines the dynamics of strategic communication when senders, aware of receivers' skepticism about their motives, attempt to influence receivers' interpretations of data using narratives. The authors aim to determine how effectively biased senders can persuade receivers who are aware of their manipulative intent.

从中提取的关键见解

Strategic communication of narratives

by Gerrit Bauch... 在 arxiv.org 10-31-2024

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.23259.pdf

更深入的查询

How might the dynamics of strategic communication change in a setting with multiple senders, each with potentially different biases and narratives?

Introducing multiple senders, each with their own biases and narratives, significantly complicates the dynamics of strategic communication in the context of model uncertainty. Here's how:

Increased Receiver Uncertainty: With multiple senders presenting different interpretations of the same data, the receiver's model uncertainty is amplified. They must now grapple with a wider range of potential narratives, making it harder to discern the true data-generating process.
Competition and Credibility: Senders now compete for the receiver's attention and trust. Their credibility becomes paramount. Senders with narratives closely aligned with the truth or those perceived as more credible might hold more sway, especially if they can expose inconsistencies or biases in others' narratives.
Coalition Formation and Narrative Convergence: Senders with similar biases might implicitly or explicitly coordinate their messages, forming coalitions to push a particular narrative. This could lead to the convergence of narratives around specific interpretations, potentially reinforcing existing biases in the receiver's beliefs.
Polarization and Divergence: Conversely, competing senders could strategically highlight aspects of the data that support their narratives while downplaying others. This selective emphasis could lead to a polarization of narratives, further entrenching the receiver's existing beliefs or even paralyzing their decision-making due to information overload.
Importance of Source Signals: The receiver's perception of each sender's bias and credibility becomes crucial. They might rely on "source signals," such as reputation, past behavior, or affiliations, to assess the reliability of different narratives.
Emergence of Meta-Narratives: The interplay of multiple narratives could give rise to "meta-narratives" – overarching interpretations that attempt to synthesize or explain the discrepancies between different senders. These meta-narratives could significantly influence the receiver's understanding of the underlying reality.
Analyzing these complex dynamics requires extending the existing framework to incorporate multiple senders. Concepts from game theory, such as signaling games, reputation building, and coalition formation, would be crucial to understanding the strategic interactions between senders and their impact on the receiver's belief formation.

Could there be scenarios where a sender might benefit from strategically appearing less biased, even if it means sacrificing some persuasive power in the short term?

Yes, there are scenarios where a sender might benefit from strategically appearing less biased, even if it leads to a short-term reduction in persuasive power. This strategy focuses on building long-term credibility and influence. Here's why:

Reputation Building: By consistently presenting narratives perceived as fair and balanced, even when they might not fully align with their own preferences, a sender can build a reputation for objectivity and trustworthiness. This enhanced credibility can pay dividends in the long run, as receivers will be more likely to accept their narratives in the future.
Avoiding Backlash: Overtly biased narratives can trigger a backlash effect, especially if the receiver suspects manipulation. By appearing less biased, the sender reduces the risk of alienating the receiver and facing resistance to their message.
Shifting the Overton Window: By strategically presenting narratives slightly outside the currently acceptable range of opinions but still within the realm of perceived objectivity, a sender can gradually shift the "Overton Window" – the range of policies and ideas considered acceptable in public discourse. This allows them to introduce more extreme views gradually over time.
Exploiting Confirmation Bias: Receivers are often prone to confirmation bias, seeking out information that confirms their existing beliefs. A sender appearing less biased might be more successful in penetrating this bias, as their narratives are less likely to be immediately dismissed as propaganda.
This strategic approach requires a delicate balance. The sender must appear sufficiently unbiased to gain credibility but not so much that their message loses its persuasive edge. Factors like the receiver's initial beliefs, the sender's reputation, and the presence of competing narratives will all influence the effectiveness of this strategy.

If we view the evolution of societal norms and values as a form of collective narrative construction, how can we ensure that this process is resistant to manipulation and promotes the common good?

Viewing societal norms and values as a product of collective narrative construction highlights the importance of safeguarding this process from manipulation and ensuring it serves the common good. Here are some potential strategies:

Promoting Media Literacy and Critical Thinking: Educating individuals to critically evaluate information, identify biases, and recognize manipulative tactics is crucial. This includes understanding how narratives are crafted, disseminated, and potentially distorted by various actors.
Encouraging Diverse Perspectives and Open Dialogue: A healthy narrative ecosystem thrives on diversity of thought. Creating platforms for open and respectful dialogue, where different perspectives can be heard and debated, is essential to challenge dominant narratives and prevent the entrenchment of harmful biases.
Supporting Independent Fact-Checking and Verification: Independent fact-checking organizations play a vital role in holding narrative creators accountable and exposing misinformation. Supporting these organizations and promoting a culture of evidence-based discourse can help mitigate the spread of manipulative narratives.
Transparency and Accountability for Narrative Creators: Whether they are journalists, politicians, or social media influencers, those who shape public narratives should be held accountable for the accuracy and fairness of their claims. Transparency regarding sources, funding, and potential conflicts of interest can help receivers assess the credibility of different narratives.
Regulation of Malicious Information Manipulation: In extreme cases, government regulation might be necessary to curb the spread of deliberately false or harmful narratives, especially those designed to incite violence or undermine democratic processes. However, such regulation must be carefully balanced against the right to freedom of expression.
Cultivating a Shared Sense of Reality and Common Purpose: Fostering a shared understanding of reality based on evidence and reason is crucial. This involves promoting social cohesion, empathy, and a commitment to the common good, making it harder for divisive or manipulative narratives to take root.
Ultimately, ensuring the responsible evolution of societal norms and values requires a multi-faceted approach involving individual empowerment, institutional safeguards, and a collective commitment to truth, fairness, and the well-being of society.