People often deny having meant what the audience understood. Such denials occur in both interpersonal and institutional contexts, such as in political discourse, the interpretation of laws and the perception of lies. In practice, denials have a wide range of possible effects on the audience, such as conversational repair, reinterpretation of the original utterance, moral judgements about the speaker, and rejection of the denial. When are these different reactions triggered? What factors make denials credible? There are surprisingly few experimental studies (...) directly targeting such questions. Here, we present two pre-registered experiments focusing on (i) the speaker’s incentives to mislead their audience, and (ii) the impact of speaker denials on audiences’ moral and epistemic assessments of what has been said. We find that the extent to which speakers are judged responsible for the audience’s interpretations is modulated by their (the speakers’) incentives to mislead, but not by denials themselves. We also find that people are more willing than we expected to revise their interpretation of the speaker’s utterance when they learn that the ascribed meaning is false, regardless of whether the speaker is known to have had incentives to deceive their audience. In general, these findings are consistent with the idea that communicators are held responsible for the cognitive effects they trigger in their audience; rather than being responsible for, more narrowly, only the effects of what was “literally” said. In light of our findings, we present a new, cognitive analysis of how audiences react to denials, drawing in particular on the Relevance Theory approach to communication. We distinguish in particular: (a) the spontaneous and intuitive re-interpretation of the original utterance in light of a denial; (b) the attribution of responsibility to the speaker for the cognitive effects of what is communicated; and (c) the reflective attribution of a particular intention to the speaker, which include argumentative considerations, higher-order deniability, and reputational concerns. Existing experimental work, including our own, aims mostly at (a) and (b), and does not adequately control for (c). Deeper understanding of what can be credibly denied will be hindered unless and until this methodological problem is resolved. (shrink)

As trust in the news media continues to decline, news organizations must find ways to bolster that trust, often in the face of diminishing budgets and dwindling bottom lines. Can trust support and even bolster economic success in news organizations? We offer a multidimensional model of trust that takes into account, among other elements, considerations of risk and scope, and suggest that journalistic excellence and economic success can support each other and result in increased public trust in news media.

We investigate gender disparities and network linkages among editors of Finance journals at the end of 2022. The role of journal editors in shaping academic disciplines is crucial, yet gender imbalances and the geographic concentration of editors remain poorly understood. Ethical considerations arise when examining the representation of women on editorial boards, as these imbalances can impact academic equity and the diversity of perspectives. We examine the gender composition of editorial boards and uncover the network structures among editors, seeking to (...) shed light on the concentration of editorial power and its implications for diversity and inclusion. Our findings reveal that women account for an average of 20% of all editors, with notable variations across countries. Additionally, editorial affiliations are heavily concentrated in the United States and the United Kingdom. Through typological metrics, we identify highly connected editors with significant board memberships. While gender ratios remain consistent in substructures involving highly central editors or those serving on multiple boards, men consistently outnumber women. (shrink)