“That’s just like, your opinion, man”: the illusory truth effect on opinions
Psychological Research - Trang 1-23 - 2023
Tóm tắt
With the expanse of technology, people are constantly exposed to an abundance of information. Of vital importance is to understand how people assess the truthfulness of such information. One indicator of perceived truthfulness seems to be whether it is repeated. That is, people tend to perceive repeated information, regardless of its veracity, as more truthful than new information, also known as the illusory truth effect. In the present study, we examined whether such effect is also observed for opinions and whether the manner in which the information is encoded influenced the illusory truth effect. Across three experiments, participants (n = 552) were presented with a list of true information, misinformation, general opinion, and/or social–political opinion statements. First, participants were either instructed to indicate whether the presented statement was a fact or opinion based on its syntax structure (Exp. 1 & 2) or assign each statement to a topic category (Exp. 3). Subsequently, participants rated the truthfulness of various new and repeated statements. Results showed that repeated information, regardless of the type of information, received higher subjective truth ratings when participants simply encoded them by assigning each statement to a topic. However, when general and social–political opinions were encoded as an opinion, we found no evidence of such effect. Moreover, we found a reversed illusory truth effect for general opinion statements when only considering information that was encoded as an opinion. These findings suggest that how information is encoded plays a crucial role in evaluating truth.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abbey, J. D., & Meloy, M. G. (2017). Attention by design: Using attention checks to detect inattentive respondents and improve data quality. Journal of Operations Management, 53–56, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2017.06.001
Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Ramani, R. S. (2021). MTurk research: review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47, 823–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920632096978
Arkes, H. R., Hackett, C., & Boehm, L. (1989). The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960020203
Bacon, F. T. (1979). Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.5.3.241
Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.446
Brashier, N. M., & Marsh, E. J. (2020). Judging truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
Brashier, N. M., Eliseev, E. D., & Marsh, E. J. (2020). An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104054
Brashier, N. M., Pennycook, G., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Timing matters when correcting fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118
Calvillo, D. P., & Harris, J. D. (2022). Exposure to headlines as questions reduces illusory truth for subsequent headlines. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000056
Clayton, K., Blair, S., Busam, J. A., Forstner, S., Glance, J., Green, G., & Nyhan, B. (2020). Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0
Corneille, O., Mierop, A., & Unkelbach, C. (2020). Repetition increases both the perceived truth and fakeness of information: an ecological account. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104470
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251
Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 993. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1
Hassan, A., & Barber, S. J. (2021). The effects of repetition frequency on the illusory truth effect. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00301-5
Hawkins SA, Hoch SJ, (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 212–225. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489329
Henderson, E. L., & Hoch, S. J. (2021). The trajectory of truth: a longitudinal study of the illusory truth effect. Journal of Cognition. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.161
Jalbert, M., Newman, E., & Schwarz, N. (2020). Only half of what i’ll tell you is true: expecting to encounter falsehoods reduces illusory truth. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9, 602–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.08.010
Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
Kan, I. P., Pizzonia, K. L., Drummey, A. B., & Mikkelsen, E. J. (2021). Exploring factors that mitigate the continued influence of misinformation. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00335-9
Lakens, D. (2014). Performing high-powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 701–710. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2023
Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
Lakens, D., Scheel, A. M., & Isager, P. M. (2018). Equivalence testing for psychological research: a tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963
Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Morwinski, S. (2013). Your opinion on climate change might not be as common as you think. Nature Climate Change, 3, 334–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1743
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
Mayo, R. (2015). Cognition is a matter of trust: distrust tunes cognitive processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 283–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2015.1117249
Mutter, S. A., Lindsey, S. E., & Pliske, R. M. (1995). Aging and credibility judgment. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 2, 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589508256590
Nadarevic, L., & Erdfelder, E. (2014). Initial judgment task and delay of the final validity-rating task moderate the truth effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 23, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.12.002
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25, 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015). What makes us think? a three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology, 80, 34–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1999.0386
Salovich, N. A., Kirsch, A. M., & Rapp, D. N. (2022). Evaluative mindsets can protect against the influence of false information. Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105121
Thomas, K. A., & Clifford, S. (2017). Validity and mechanical Turk: an assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.038
Unkelbach, C., & Rom, S. C. (2017). A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect. Cognition, 160, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.12.016
Unkelbach, C., & Speckmann, F. (2021). Mere repetition increases belief in factually true COVID-19-related information. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10, 241–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.02.001
Unkelbach, C., Koch, A., Silva, R. R., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2019). Truth by repetition: explanations and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419827854
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559