DOCSLIB.ORG

Motivated Reasoning in a Causal Explore-Exploit Task by Zachary A. Caddick B.A. in Psychology, California State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Motivated Reasoning in a Causal Explore-Exploit Task by Zachary A. Caddick B.A. in Psychology, California State University Motivated Reasoning in a Causal Explore-Exploit Task by Zachary A. Caddick B.A. in Psychology, California State University, San Bernardino, 2013 M.A. in Experimental and Research Psychology, San José State University, 2016 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Pittsburgh 2020 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This thesis was presented by Zachary A. Caddick It was defended on March 17, 2020 and approved by Timothy J. Nokes-Malach, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychology Kevin R. Binning, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology Thesis Advisor: Benjamin M. Rottman, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Psychology ii Copyright © by Zachary A. Caddick 2020 iii Motivated Reasoning in a Causal Explore-Exploit Task Zachary A. Caddick, M.S. University of Pittsburgh, 2020 The current research investigates how prior preferences affect causal learning. Participants were tasked with repeatedly choosing policies (e.g., increase vs. decrease border security funding) in order to maximize the economic output of an imaginary country, and inferred the influence of the policies on the economy. The task was challenging and ambiguous, allowing participants to interpret the relations between the policies and the economy in multiple ways. In three studies, we found evidence of motivated reasoning despite financial incentives for accuracy. For example, participants who believed that border security funding should be increased were more likely to conclude that increasing border security funding actually caused a better economy in the task. In Study 2, we hypothesized that having neutral preferences (e.g., preferring neither increased nor decreased spending on border security) would lead to more accurate assessments overall compared to having a strong initial preference, however, we did not find evidence for such an effect. In Study 3, we tested whether providing participants with possible functional forms of the policies (e.g., the policy takes some time to work, or initially has a negative influence but eventually a positive influence) would lead to a smaller influence of motivated reasoning, but found little evidence for this effect. This research advances the field of causal learning by studying the role of prior preferences, and in doing so, integrates the fields of causal learning and motivated reasoning using a novel explore-exploit task. iv Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. x List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xi 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Motivated Reasoning........................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Causal Learning .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2.1 Ambiguity. ..................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Active Learning and Explore/Exploit Paradigms. .................................................... 7 2.0 Summary of Studies and Hypotheses .................................................................................... 8 3.0 Study 1.................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Method................................................................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Participants. ................................................................................................................ 10 3.1.2 Design. .......................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.3 Economic Functions. .................................................................................................. 11 3.1.4 Procedures and Measures. ......................................................................................... 13 3.1.4.1 Initial Instructions. ............................................................................................. 13 3.1.4.2 Initial Policy Assessment. ................................................................................... 14 3.1.4.3 Party Color Selection. ......................................................................................... 14 3.1.4.4 Economic Learning Task. .................................................................................. 15 3.1.4.5 Function Identification. ...................................................................................... 17 3.1.5 Individual Differences. ............................................................................................... 18 3.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 18 v 3.2.1 Participants. ................................................................................................................ 19 3.2.2 Choices in the Learning Task. ................................................................................... 19 3.2.2.1 Amount of Testing by Preference. ..................................................................... 19 3.2.2.2 Number of Trials Until Testing by Preference (Figure 4). .............................. 20 3.2.2.3 Never Testing Bias by Preference (Figure 5). ................................................... 21 3.2.2.4 Testing the Optimal Policy by Preference (Figure 6). ..................................... 23 3.2.2.5 Summary of Choices During the Learning Task. ............................................ 25 3.2.3 Judgments of Policy Efficacy After the Learning Task. ......................................... 25 3.2.3.1 Causal Functions (Figure 7). .............................................................................. 25 3.2.3.2 Non-Causal Functions (Figure 8). ..................................................................... 27 3.2.4 Function Identification. .............................................................................................. 28 3.2.4.1 Causal Functions (Table 1). ............................................................................... 29 3.2.4.2 Non-Causal Functions. ....................................................................................... 29 3.2.5 Relations Between Choices During the Learning Task and Judgments of Policy Efficacy. ................................................................................................................................ 30 3.3 Study 1 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 30 4.0 Study 2.................................................................................................................................... 32 4.1 Method................................................................................................................................ 32 4.1.1 Participants. ................................................................................................................ 33 4.2 Results ................................................................................................................................ 34 4.2.1 Choices in the Learning Task. ................................................................................... 34 4.2.1.1 Amount of Testing by Preference. ..................................................................... 34 4.2.1.1.1 Causal Functions. ......................................................................................... 34 vi 4.2.1.1.2 Non-Causal Functions. ................................................................................ 34 4.2.1.2 Number of Trials Until Testing by Preference (Figure 4). .............................. 34 4.2.1.3 Never Testing Bias by Preference (Figure 5). ................................................... 35 4.2.1.4 Testing the Optimal Policy by Preference (Figure 6). ..................................... 35 4.2.1.5 Summary of Choices During the Learning Task. ............................................ 37 4.2.2 Judgments of Policy Efficacy After the Learning Task. ......................................... 38 4.2.2.1 Causal Functions (Figure 7). .............................................................................. 38 4.2.2.2 Non-Causal Function (Figure 8). ....................................................................... 39 4.2.3 Function Identification. .............................................................................................. 40 4.2.3.1 Causal Functions (Table 1). ............................................................................... 40 4.2.3.2 Non-Causal Functions (Table 2). ....................................................................... 41 4.3 Study 2A & 2B Discussion ................................................................................................ 41 5.0 Study 3...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Polarization and Media Usage: Disentangling Causality
    Polarization and Media Usage: Disentangling Causality Abstract: This chapter examines the literature concerning media choice and partisan polarization. The past few decades have seen enormous growth in the number of television and internet news sources, giving consumers dramatically increased choices. Previous research has suggested two distinct links between media choice and partisan polarization: partisan media as a reflection of polarization, as partisans self-select into media that conforms with their preexisting views, or as a cause of polarization, when outlets present one-sided stories that persuade people to adopt more extreme views. This chapter discusses how the literature in these two research traditions has diverged, as well as more recent research attempting to bridge this divide. Using novel methods, these studies have drawn together both self-selection and causal research designs to provide a more complete picture of media choice effects, and expanded the literature to more recent mediums, including the internet and social media. Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, Harvard University and Northeastern University ([email protected]) Matthew A. Baum, Harvard University ([email protected])* Adam J. Berinsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ([email protected]) Keywords: media choice, polarization, self-selection, persuasion, causality *corresponding author In recent years, pundits, politicians, and ordinary citizens have expressed growing concern over political polarization in the United States. A great deal of this outcry has focused on the rise of partisan news media, and how its growth has allowed people to choose the media that they consume. The typical U.S. household now receives about 190 television channels, more than a tenfold increase since 1980 and up by nearly half since 2008.i The options for different news sources on the internet are even more numerous.
    [Show full text]
  • Why So Confident? the Influence of Outcome Desirability on Selective Exposure and Likelihood Judgment
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Archived version from NCDOCKS Institutional Repository http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/ Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment Authors Paul D. Windschitl , Aaron M. Scherer a, Andrew R. Smith , Jason P. Rose Abstract Previous studies that have directly manipulated outcome desirability have often found little effect on likelihood judgments (i.e., no desirability bias or wishful thinking). The present studies tested whether selections of new information about outcomes would be impacted by outcome desirability, thereby biasing likelihood judgments. In Study 1, participants made predictions about novel outcomes and then selected additional information to read from a buffet. They favored information supporting their prediction, and this fueled an increase in confidence. Studies 2 and 3 directly manipulated outcome desirability through monetary means. If a target outcome (randomly preselected) was made especially desirable, then participants tended to select information that supported the outcome. If made undesirable, less supporting information was selected. Selection bias was again linked to subsequent likelihood judgments. These results constitute novel evidence for the role of selective exposure in cases of overconfidence and desirability bias in likelihood judgments. Paul D. Windschitl , Aaron M. Scherer a, Andrew R. Smith , Jason P. Rose (2013) "Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment" Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 120 (2013) 73–86 (ISSN: 0749-5978) Version of Record available @ DOI: (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.10.002) Why so confident? The influence of outcome desirability on selective exposure and likelihood judgment q a,⇑ a c b Paul D.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking the Link Between Cognitive Sophistication and Politically Motivated Reasoning
    RETHINKING SOPHISTICATION AND MOTIVATED REASONING 1 Rethinking the link between cognitive sophistication and politically motivated reasoning Ben M. Tappin 1, Gordon Pennycook 2, David G. Rand 1,3 1 Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2 Hill/Levene School of Business, University of Regina 3 Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Forthcoming in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Author note This article contains supplementary information accessible at https://osf.io/yt3kd/. We are grateful to Antonio Arechar for assistance with data collection, and to Dan Kahan and Philip Hanser for comments on and discussion regarding an earlier draft. We acknowledge funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative of the Miami Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Cogito Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ben Tappin, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02142, United States of America. Email: [email protected] RETHINKING SOPHISTICATION AND MOTIVATED REASONING 2 Abstract Partisan disagreement over policy-relevant facts is a salient feature of contemporary American politics. Perhaps surprisingly, such disagreements are often the greatest among opposing partisans who are the most cognitively sophisticated.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivated Reasoning Without Partisanship? Fake News in the 2018 Brazilian Elections
    Motivated Reasoning Without Partisanship? Fake News in the 2018 Brazilian Elections Frederico Batista Pereira1, Natália S. Bueno2, Felipe Nunes3, and Nara Pavão4 1Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Charlotte 2Assistant Professor, Emory University 3Assistant Professor, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais 4Assistant Professor, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Abstract Studies suggest that rumor acceptance is driven by motivated reasoning and that people’s desire to conclude what is suggested by their partisanship undermines the effectiveness of corrective information. This paper explores this process in a context where party attachments are weaker and less stable than elsewhere. We conducted a survey experiment during the 2018 elections in Brazil to examine the extent of rumor acceptance and the effectiveness of fact-checking corrections to fake news stories disseminated about the country’s most important political group. We find that about a third of our respondents believe the rumors used in the study and that, just like what is found in developed nations, belief in misinformation in Brazil is correlated with (anti)partisan attitudes. However, fact-checking corrections are particularly weak in Brazil compared to the developed world. While weak parti- sanship reduces the rates of rumor acceptance in Brazil, ineffective corrections are unlikely to prevent the circulation of fake news in the country. Please do not quote or cite without permission Fake news, understood as false information whose purpose is to generate and reinforce misperceptions of reality, is a growing concern in politics, due to its potential to distort public debate and disrupt elections (Lazer et al. 2018). The vast majority of the knowl- edge we currently have about political misperceptions comes from research conducted in the developed world, particularly in the United States (Walter and Murphy 2018; Nieminen and Rapeli 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidence for Motivated Reasoning in Climate Change Preference Formation
    REVIEW ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation James N. Druckman * and Mary C. McGrath Despite a scientific consensus, citizens are divided when it comes to climate change — often along political lines. Democrats or liberals tend to believe that human activity is a primary cause of climate change, whereas Republicans or conservatives are much less likely to hold this belief. A prominent explanation for this divide is that it stems from directional motivated reason- ing: individuals reject new information that contradicts their standing beliefs. In this Review, we suggest that the empirical evidence is not so clear, and is equally consistent with a theory in which citizens strive to form accurate beliefs but vary in what they consider to be credible evidence. This suggests a new research agenda on climate change preference formation, and has implications for effective communication. widely discussed explanation for the public divide in beliefs Our starting point is a standing (or prior) belief. This belief about climate change is that people engage in ‘directional can be any climate change-relevant construct, such as beliefs that A motivated reasoning’1–4. According to this explanation, indi- climate change is occurring, that climate change is anthropogenic, viduals skeptical about climate change reject ostensibly credible about a scientific consensus on climate change, about a conspir- scientific information because it counters their standing beliefs. acy with regard to climate change, about who is responsible for Considering the threat that such a tendency poses to effectual sci- causing and/or addressing climate change, about the efficacy of entific communication, scholars and practitioners have focused on mitigation policies, about risks from climate change, about the identifying conditions that curtail or counteract directional moti- impact of climate-relevant behaviours (such as biking instead of vated reasoning5,6.
    [Show full text]
  • Wishful Thinking and Source Monitoring
    Memory & Cognition 2005, 33 (3), 418-429 Wishful thinking and source monitoring RUTHANNA GORDON Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois and NANCY FRANKLIN and JENNIFER BECK State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York Memory distortions sometimes serve a purpose: It may be in our interest to misremember some de- tails of an event or to forget others altogether. The present work examines whether a similar phenom- enon occurs for source attribution. Given that the source of a memory provides information about the accuracy of its content, people may be biased toward source attributions that are consistent with de- sired accuracy. In Experiment 1, participants read desirable and undesirable predictions made by sources differing in their a priori reliability and showed a wishful thinking bias—that is, a bias to at- tribute desirable predictions to the reliable source and undesirable predictions to the unreliable source. Experiment 2 showed that this wishful thinking effect depends on retrieval processes. Experiment 3 showed that under some circumstances, wishes concerning one event can produce systematic source memory errors for others. The origin of a message—hence, the origin of one’s to be designed to operate in a sensible manner, by relying memory for it—is often diagnostic of how trustworthy on features with values empirically correlated with the the message’s content is. Information about the reliabil- various candidate sources (e.g., Intraub & Hoffman, 1992; ity of a new car deserves different treatment if read in a Johnson, Foley, & Leach, 1988). Consumer Reports article than if read in a magazine ad However, source monitoring doesn’t always produce ac- or an e-mail from a friend.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivated Reasoning and Policy Information: Politicians Are More Resistant to Debiasing Interventions Than the General Public
    Behavioural Public Policy, Page 1 of 22 © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. doi:10.1017/bpp.2020.50 Motivated reasoning and policy information: politicians are more resistant to debiasing interventions than the general public JULIAN CHRISTENSEN* Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark DONALD P. MOYNIHAN McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA Abstract: A growing body of evidence shows that politicians use motivated reasoning to fit evidence with prior beliefs. In this, they are not unlike other people. We use survey experiments to reaffirm prior work showing that politicians, like the public they represent, engage in motivated reasoning. However, we also show that politicians are more resistant to debiasing interventions than others. When required to justify their evaluations, politicians rely more on prior political attitudes and less on policy information, increasing the probability of erroneous decisions. The results raise the troubling implication that the specialized role of elected officials makes them more immune to the correction of biases, and in this way less representative of the voters they serve when they process policy information. Introduction Proponents of evidence-based policymaking hope that enhanced access to policy information will help politicians make better decisions, leading to improved societal outcomes (Davies et al., 2000). Governments have accord- ingly built policy information infrastructures, including appointments of chief scientific advisors, establishment of scientific advisory committees (Doubleday & Wilsdon, 2012) and statutory requirements to report data on bureaucratic performance (Moynihan & Beazley, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning
    bs_bs_banner Political Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 5, 2020 doi: 10.1111/pops.12663 When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning Robin Bayes Northwestern University James N. Druckman Northwestern University Avery Goods Northwestern University Daniel C. Molden Northwestern University It is commonly assumed that the effectiveness of political messages depends on people's motivations. Yet, studies of politically motivated reasoning typically only consider what partisans generally might want to believe and do not separately examine the different types of motives that likely underlie these wants. The present research explores the roles of distinct types of motives in politically motivated thinking and identifies the conditions under which motivated reasoners are persuaded by political messages. Results of an experiment with a large, representative sample of Republicans show that manipulations inducing motivations for either (1) forming accurate impressions, (2) affirming moral values, or (3) affirming group identity each increased beliefs in and intentions to combat human-induced climate change, but only when also paired with political messages that are congruent with the induced motivation. We also find no evidence of a backlash effect even when individuals are provided with clearly uncongenial information and a motivation to reject it. Overall, our findings make clear that understanding when and why motivated political reasoning occurs requires a more complete understanding of both which motivations might be active among a group of partisans and how these motivations resonate with the messaging they receive. KEY WORDS: accuracy motivation, moral values, group norms, climate change beliefs, motivated reasoning Public opinion often shapes public policies, particularly when it comes to salient political is- sues.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivated Thinking
    P1: GFZ 0521824176c13.xml CB798B/Holyoak 0521824176 October 31, 2004 6:5 CHAPTER 13 Motivated Thinking Daniel C. Molden E. Tory Higgins At one time or another, every one of us has judgment. More recently however, there has engaged in “wishful thinking,” or “let our been a sharp increase in attempts to achieve hearts influence our heads.” That is, every a marriage between these two viewpoints in one of us has felt the effects of our motiva- a wide variety of research areas. The pri- tions on our thought processes. Given this mary objective of this chapter is to review common everyday experience, it is not sur- these attempts and to demonstrate how it prising that an essential part of early psy- is not only possible, but also desirable, to chological research was the idea that drives, reintroduce motivational approaches to the needs, desires, motives, and goals can pro- study of basic thought processes. We begin foundly influence judgment and reasoning. by providing some historical background on More surprising is that motivational vari- such approaches. ables play only a small role in current the- ories of reasoning. Why might this be? One possible explanation is that since the cognitive revolution in the 1960s and 1970s, A Brief History of Motivated Thinking researchers studying motivational and cogni- tive processes have been speaking somewhat Motivational perspectives on thought and different languages. That is, there has been reasoning originated most prominently with a general failure to connect traditional moti- Freud’s (1905) clinical theorizing on the vational concepts, such as drives or motives, psychodynamic conflicts created by uncon- to information processing concepts, such as scious drives and urges.
    [Show full text]
  • Motivated Errors
    Motivated Errors Christine L. Exley and Judd B. Kessler∗ December 8. 2019 Abstract In three sets of experiments involving over 4,200 subjects, we show that agents motivated to be selfish make systematic decision errors of the kind generally attributed to cognitive limita- tions or behavioral biases. We show that these decision errors are eliminated (or dramatically reduced) when self-serving motives are removed. We say that individuals make \motivated errors." They make decision errors, but only when it is self-serving to do so. ∗Exley: [email protected], Harvard Business School; Kessler: [email protected], The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. 1 Introduction Most people would like to believe that they are good.1 Yet, many of their decisions are not good | they are selfish, lazy, impatient, indulgent, or worse. How do people resolve this tension? Previous research has highlighted the role of motivated decisions, which allows agents to rationalize their decisions in a more favorable light.2 In particular, the prior literature on motivated decisions has demonstrated two broad ways in which agents rationalize decisions that could be viewed as undesirable. The first way involves appealing to uncertainty in how decisions map to outcomes. The intuition is as follows. Choosing a decision that benefits oneself to the detriment of others is undesirable, but choosing a decision that benefits oneself but may not harm others | because of uncertainty in how decisions map to outcomes | may be less undesirable. Such motivated decisions are often facilitated by information avoidance. In the canonical example of Dana, Weber and Kuang(2007), agents choose to stay uninformed about the state of the world in order to maintain uncertainty about whether a selfish action harms another subject.3 The second way involves attributing undesirable decisions to more innocuous preferences or beliefs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Confirmation Bias and Motivated Reasoning Bias on Objectivity and Independence: a Framework
    Volume 4 Issue 2 Article 6 September 2019 Partner rotation or extended rotations? The effect of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias on objectivity and independence: A framework Lei Dong University of Idaho, [email protected] Robert Sarikas Eastern Washington University, [email protected] Arsen Djatej Eastern Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/globe Part of the Business Commons This Refereed Article is brought to you for free and open access by the M3 Center at the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee at Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Global Business Insights by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Dong, L., Sarikas, R., & Djatej, A. (2019). Partner rotation or extended rotations? The effect of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias on objectivity and independence: A framework. Journal of Global Business Insights, 4(2), 156-168. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.4.2.1070 Corresponding Author Arsen Djatej, 668 N. Riverpoint Blvd., Room 350, Spokane, WA 99005 Revisions Submission date: Apr. 11, 2019; 1st Revision: Aug. 28, 2019; 2nd Revision: Sept. 13, 2019; Acceptance: Sep. 26, 2019 Dong et al.: Partner rotation or extended rotations? The effect of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning bias on objectivity and independence: A framework Partner Rotation or Extended
    [Show full text]
  • Motivated Reasoning and Blame: Responses to Performance Framing and Outgroup Triggers During COVID-19
    Motivated Reasoning and Blame: Responses to Performance Framing and Outgroup Triggers during COVID-19 Gregory Porumbescu, School of Public Affairs and Administration, Rutgers University Donald Moynihan, McCourt of Public Policy, Georgetown University Jason Anastasopoulos, School of Public and International Affairs, University of Georgia Asmus Leth Olsen, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen Abstract To manage citizen evaluations of government performance, public officials use blame avoidance strategies when communicating performance information. We examine two prominent presentational strategies: scapegoating and spinning, while testing how public responses vary depending on whether they are ideologically aligned with the public official. We examine these relationships in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where the Trump administration sought to shift blame by scapegoating outgroups (by using the term “Chinese virus”), and framing performance information on COVID-19 testing in positive terms. Using a novel pre-registered survey experiment that incorporates open and close-ended items, we offer three main findings. First, there is clear evidence of motivated reasoning: conservatives rate the performance of the Trump administration more positively and are more apt to blame prominent Democrats, Chinese residents and the Chinese Government. Second, performance information framing was found to impact blame attribution among conservatives, but only for open-ended responses. Third, while exposure to the term “Chinese virus” increased blame assigned to Chinese residents among all participants, conservatives exposed to the term appeared to blame President Trump more, suggesting repeated use of divisive blame shifting strategies may alienate even supporters. 1 A close-up photograph of Trump at the podium in mid-March made clear that he had used a Sharpie pen to replace the term “Coronavirus” with “Chinese virus” (Karni 2020).
    [Show full text]