Elizabeth Carlen, Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and Tyus Williams, University of California, Berkeley

Imagine it’s a crisp and sunny fall morning. You just left your local coffee shop, ready to start your day.

Out of the corner of your eye, you catch a glimpse of something moving in the bushes. Is it a squirrel stashing acorns for the winter? A robin fattening up for migration? As you get closer, the image becomes clear and you unconsciously hold your breath.

It’s a black cat out for its morning stroll.

You pause for a second to decide your next move. Cross the street so the cat can’t cross your path? Muster the courage to walk past it, or even crouch down to pet it? Rationally, you know the idea that a black cat is bad luck is just a silly superstition … but you have an important meeting this afternoon and don’t want to jinx it.

This superstition about black cats and other black animals in general has shaped people’s preferences about animals. It’s left its mark on things such as lower adoption rates for black cats and beliefs that black cats are more aggressive. Yet, these biases are unfounded.

As two biologists who focus on human-wildlife interactions, what we find scary is how superstitions, lore and myths can shape your subconscious – particularly biases toward the animals people are trying to conserve and protect.

Rarity of a solely black or white animal

Of course, animal fur, feathers and scales come in various colors across the visible and invisible-to-humans spectrum. These colorations play a significant role in the survival of wildlife by functioning as a form of concealment, temperature regulation or communication. In white-tailed deer, for instance, a flash of a white tail can indicate danger is near, while the sharp red breast of a male cardinal attracts females that are ready to mate.

Within species, color variations are found throughout the animal kingdom, including melanistic animals with more dark pigmentation and leucistic animals with a reduction of pigment. There are black panthers, a melanistic version of a leopard, Panthera pardus, or jaguar, Panthera onca. On the other side of the spectrum are white spirit bears, a leucistic version of an American black bear, Ursus americanus. There are also albino animals that lack most or all pigment.

Scientists recognize these color variations as extreme abnormalities within the natural world. Being all black or all white is a rare phenomenon, unlikely to persist in the wild because it’s a selective disadvantage. These animals often have a tougher time blending into their habitat – a challenge for predators trying to ambush their prey, and for prey trying to conceal themselves from predators. They may also struggle to regulate their temperature and to communicate with others in their species.

A suite of genes that can change in many ways is behind this rainbow of wildlife coloration. One of the most well-known and studied genes is MC1R. In animals, loss-of-function mutations in the MC1R gene can result in light, yellow or reddish coat color. In humans, redheads have up to five loss-of-function mutations in MC1R, leading to hair that ranges from strawberry blonde to copper.

Protection based on unique color

Recently, we explored how charismatic coloring, including melanistic and leucistic or albinism coloration, affects the conservation of animals in the United States. As we read through local laws and found news stories of wildlife being protected or culled, we noticed a trend: Many albinistic and leucistic animals are protected.

Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin laws protect albino/white deer from being hunted. In Marionville, Missouri, white squirrels are protected and given the right-of-way on all public streets, with a penalty of up to US$500 or 90 days in jail for failing to abide by the law. In Louisiana, it’s prohibited to take white alligators from the wild, with a fine of at least $10,000 and six months in jail. The World Wilderness Congress recently adopted a resolution: Making Space to Protect White Animals, Messengers of Peace.

We also found white animals readily celebrated. Brevard, North Carolina, hosts a yearly festival called “White Squirrel Weekend.” People often release white doves at weddings and funerals as symbols of purity and peace. The California Academy of Sciences’ famous albino alligator named Claude has a whole book written about him. And members of the Olney, Illinois, police department wear a patch on their uniform with a white squirrel.

We found similar laws and celebrations do not exist in these jurisdictions for the white animals’ melanistic/black counterparts. We did identify a few cities and schools, including Marysville, Kansas, and Goshen College, that made the black squirrel their mascot.

This discrepancy surprised us because the genetic mutation that causes melanism occurs less frequently than the one that causes albinism/leucism. Pure black animals are more novel. We thought the more rare melanistic animals would pique human interest for being more unusual and trigger more protections.

Colors have long-standing associations

For many thousands of years, people have shared with each other stories, lore, tales and myths that attempt to explain the world.

Sometimes these stories provide cautionary advice about the dangers that lurk around us. As our early ancestors sat around fires, telling thrilling stories, they sought refuge together from the darkness that concealed looming threats. The partiality evident in our history can linger for significant periods of time, making it difficult to unlearn.

Many human biases developed as a survival response – one reason a darkly colored nocturnal predator would be fearsome is that it’s so hard to see at night, for instance. Modern preconceptions, though, can be based on harmful ideologies. Somewhere, way back when, white became synonymous with “good” and “pure,” while black aligned more with “evil” and “unclean.” And even now these unconscious affiliations influence how people celebrate and protect – or not – rare animals.

Perhaps more chilling than a black cat darting past you is the thought of how much in your subconscious mind goes unquestioned. Ideologies – whether detrimental or benign – permeate human society, influencing people’s perceptions of reality and informing how they interact with the world.

This Halloween, rather than the spooky proposition of goblins and ghouls, consider whether the more horrifying specters are the unacknowledged and dangerous biases we humans possess.

Elizabeth Carlen, Living Earth Collaborative Postdoctoral Fellow, Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and Tyus Williams, Ph.D. Candidate in Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Sophie Bjork-James, Vanderbilt University; Anna-Grace Lilly, University of Toledo, and Isabelle Perry Newman, University of Virginia

Abortion bans are intended to reduce elective abortions, but they are also affecting the way physicians practice medicine.

That is the key finding from our recently published article in the journal Social Science & Medicine.

Medical providers practicing in states that implemented abortion bans in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Supreme Court decision are forced to balance the needs of their pregnant patients against the risk that the providers could be prosecuted for treating these patients. This dilemma has serious and far-reaching consequences.

We interviewed 22 medical providers working in reproductive health care across Tennessee in the six months following the implementation of the state’s total abortion ban in 2022.

Providers spoke with our team about the need to protect themselves from criminal liability and told us that they were increasingly hesitant to provide care that their patients needed.

Why it matters

A 2024 ProPublica investigation found that at least two women have died in Georgia as a result of being denied medical care stemming from the implementation of these abortion bans. Nearly all of our interviewees spoke about their fear that these kinds of deaths would happen.

Providers told us that patients often believe that these bans include exceptions when the health of the pregnant person is at risk, but that is not always true in practice.

The Tennessee abortion ban allows for an “exception for situations where the abortion is necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of major bodily function.”

The problem is that such cases are rarely clear-cut. And the stakes for health care providers are very high. In certain states, including Tennessee, if they are found to have provided an abortion in a case where the mother’s life or health was not imminently at risk, they can face felony charges, which could include multiple years in prison.

In interviews, providers described many cases where terminating a pregnancy is medically necessary for the pregnant person. Take cases of preterm premature membrane rupture, a condition where a pregnant person’s water breaks before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Serious complications can follow a premature membrane rupture, particularly in cases that do not result in the beginning of labor.

The standard treatment for this condition is to induce labor in an effort to prevent such potential medical complications. However, if it is early on in a pregnancy and the fetus would likely not survive outside the womb, this treatment is now discouraged, as the law does not sufficiently clarify what interventions are allowed to protect the pregnant person.

In many cases, the physical harm the pregnant person is experiencing correlates with the level of legal protection a medical provider receives.

Although doctors are trained to follow best practices around health care treatment, fear of malpractice accusations leads to the widely documented practice of defensive medicine, cases where providers either over-administer testing or avoid risks in an effort to prevent malpractice lawsuits.

Abortion bans make this dynamic far worse because they often involve the threat of criminal prosecution, which is not covered by malpractice insurance. This exposes providers to a new form of risk, one that is shaping how providers interact with patients and provide care.

Our team calls this new form of defensive medicine “hesitant medicine.” Providers are forced to prioritize their own criminal legal protection over the well-being of their patients, so they hesitate to provide treatment that patients need. Hesitancy is exacerbated by bans that are ambiguous about when a provider can intervene during a pregnancy complication.

What’s next

It will take years before researchers have data showing the full picture of how abortion bans are affecting women’s reproductive health. However, our interviews show that these bans are already shaping how providers are treating pregnant people.

A majority of our interviewees had considered moving to a state without an abortion ban to practice medicine with far less stress around the threat of criminal prosecution, a trend that is already occurring. Over time, this exodus of providers could exacerbate the problem of health care deserts in the United States.

To mitigate some of this harm, more effort is needed from medical associations, employers and legislatures to clarify or revise the Tennessee “Human Life Protection Act” in a way that better protects women’s health.

Sophie Bjork-James, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University; Anna-Grace Lilly, Medical Student, University of Toledo, and Isabelle Perry Newman, Medical Student, University of Virginia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Haoran Chu, University of Florida and Sixiao Liu, University of Central Florida

Stories define people – they shape our relationships, cultures and societies. Unlike other skills replaced by technology, storytelling has remained uniquely human, setting people apart from machines. But now, even storytelling is being challenged. Artificial intelligence, powered by vast datasets, can generate stories that sometimes rival, or even surpass, those written by humans.

Creative professionals have been among the first to feel the threat of AI. Last year, Hollywood screenwriters protested, demanding – and winning – protections against AI replacing their jobs. As university professors, we’ve seen student work that seems suspiciously AI-generated, which can be frustrating.

Beyond the threat to livelihoods, AI’s ability to craft compelling, humanlike stories also poses a societal risk: the spread of misinformation. Fake news, which once required significant effort, can now be produced with ease. This is especially concerning because decades of research have shown that people are often more influenced by stories than by explicit arguments and entreaties.

We set out to study how well AI-written stories stack up against those by human storytellers. We found that AI storytelling is impressive, but professional writers needn’t worry – at least not yet.

The power of stories

How do stories influence people? Their power often lies in transportation – the feeling of being transported to and fully immersed in an imagined world. You’ve likely experienced this while losing yourself in the wizarding world of Harry Potter or 19th-century English society in “Pride and Prejudice.” This kind of immersion lets you experience new places and understand others’ perspectives, often influencing how you view your own life afterward.

When you’re transported by a story, you not only learn by observing, but your skepticism is also suspended. You’re so engrossed in the storyline that you let your guard down, allowing the story to influence you without triggering skepticism in it or the feeling of being manipulated.

Given the power of stories, can AI tell a good one? This question matters not only to those in creative industries but to everyone. A good story can change lives, as evidenced by mythical and nationalist narratives that have influenced wars and peace.

Studying whether AI can tell compelling stories also helps researchers like us understand what makes narratives effective. Unlike human writers, AI provides a controlled way to experiment with storytelling techniques.

Head-to-head results

In our experiments, we explored whether AI could tell compelling stories. We used descriptions from published studies to prompt ChatGPT to generate three narratives, then asked over 2,000 participants to read and rate their engagement with these stories. We labeled half as AI-written and half as human-written.

Our results were mixed. In three experiments, participants found human-written stories to be generally more “transporting” than AI-generated ones, regardless of how the source was labeled. However, they were not more likely to raise questions about AI-generated stories. In multiple cases, they even challenged them less than human-written ones. The one clear finding was that labeling a story as AI-written made it less appealing to participants and led to more skepticism, no matter the actual author.

Why is this the case? Linguistic analysis of the stories showed that AI-generated stories tended to have longer paragraphs and sentences, while human writers showed more stylistic diversity. AI writes coherently, with strong links between sentences and ideas, but human writers vary more, creating a richer experience. This also points to the possibility that prompting AI models to write in more diverse tones and styles may improve their storytelling.

These findings provide an early look at AI’s potential for storytelling. We also looked at research in storytelling, psychology and philosophy to understand what makes a good story.

We believe four things make stories engaging: good writing, believability, creativity and lived experience. AI is great at writing fluently and making stories believable. But creativity and real-life experiences are where AI falls short. Creativity means coming up with new ideas, while AI is designed to predict the most likely outcome. And although AI can sound human, it lacks the real-life experiences that often make stories truly compelling.

Closing in?

It’s too early to come to a definitive conclusion about whether AI can eventually be used for high-quality storytelling. AI is good at writing fluently and coherently, and its creativity may rival that of average writers. However, AI’s strength lies in predictability. Its algorithms are designed to generate the most likely outcome based on data, which can make its stories appealing in a familiar way. This is similar to the concept of beauty in averageness, the documented preference people have for composite images that represent the average face of a population. This predictability, though limiting true creativity, can still resonate with audiences.

For now, screenwriters and novelists aren’t at risk of losing their jobs. AI can tell stories, but they aren’t quite on par with the best human storytellers. Still, as AI continues to evolve, we may see more compelling stories generated by machines, which could pose serious challenges, especially when they’re used to spread misinformation.

Haoran Chu, Assistant Professor of Communications, University of Florida and Sixiao Liu, Assistant Professor of Population Health Sciences, University of Central Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.