![]() Given the ramifications of repetition for belief, there is both a theoretical and ethical imperative to understand better the parameters of the effect.Įxplanations, Predictions and Contradictions Deliberate use of the illusory truth effect could amplify the believability of claims, from minor (Listerine prevents sore throats) to monumental (Iraq has weapons of mass destruction). Similarly, an advertiser can repeat scientifically spurious claims as a means to increase belief in their product’s effectiveness. ![]() Simply by repeating a statement, such as “no country currently has a functioning track and trace app” as Boris Johnson has said, or “President Barack Obama was born in Kenya” as Donald Trump persisted, a politician can increase belief in inaccurate or misleading information. The illusory truth effect could bolster the tactics of propagandists, allowing them to amplify the believability of their message whether or not it is true (see Pennycook, Cannon, & Rand, 2018 Polage, 2012). Repeatedly reading misinformation might even reduce how unethical it feels to share that unambiguously false information on social media ( Effron & Raj, 2019). It persists even when participants are warned to avoid it ( Nadarevic & Aßfalg, 2017), possess knowledge about the factual answer ( Fazio, Brashier, Payne, & Marsh, 2015), or are explicitly informed about which statements are true and which are false ( Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992 Gilbert, Krull, & Malone, 1990 Skurnik, Yoon, Park, & Schwarz, 2005). The effect seems robust to individual differences in cognitive ability ( De keersmaecker et al., 2019). Inferring truth from repetition is apposite in a world where most of the information people encounter is true, but repetition can create an illusion of truth for false information the truth effect occurs for both true and false statements ( Brown & Nix, 1996), and for both plausible and implausible ones ( Fazio, Rand, & Pennycook, 2019). That is, repetition generates the illusion of epistemic weight. When judging truth or accuracy, people rate repeated statements as subjectively truer than comparable new statements (the illusory truth effect or repetition-induced truth effect), even though repetition alone provides no new, probative information. Human judgements are influenced not only by the informational value of the content we experience, but also by our subjective experience of information processing ( Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009). Researchers should consider the implications of the choice of intersession interval when designing future illusory truth effect research. False information repeated over short timescales might have a greater effect on truth judgements than repetitions over longer timescales. ![]() Both our hypotheses were supported: We observed an illusory truth effect at all four intervals (overall effect: χ 2(1) = 169.91 M repeated = 4.52, M new = 4.14 H1), with the effect diminishing as delay increased (H2). ![]() This Registered Report describes a longitudinal investigation of the illusory truth effect ( n = 608, n = 567 analysed) in which we systematically manipulated intersession interval (immediately, one day, one week, and one month) in order to test whether the illusory truth effect is immune to time. Contrary to some theoretical predictions, the illusory truth effect seems to be similar in magnitude for repetitions occurring after minutes or weeks. Repeated statements are rated as subjectively truer than comparable new statements, even though repetition alone provides no new, probative information (the illusory truth effect).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |