A word of warning: Instructions and feedback cannot prevent the revelation effect

Aßfalg, André; Nadarevic, Lena

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2015.03.016

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the revelation effect-the tendency to call a stimulus more familiar directly following an intervening task such as solving an anagram (e.g., nushines-sunshine) than without an intervening task-is robust against warning instructions (Watkins & Peynircioglu, 1990;Aßfalg & Nadarevic, 2015). The repetition-based truth effect could also be robust against warning instructions, if the fluency-truth attribution process, proposed to underlie the truth effect, is outside of the participants' control.…”

Section: Previous Debiasing Approachesmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Further, in Experiment 1, participants in the warning condition might have failed to attend or comprehend the warning instructions altogether. For that reason, Experiment 2 included several control questions, designed to assess participants' comprehension of the warning instructions and to repeat the instructions if necessary (Aßfalg & Nadarevic, 2015). Moreover, to ensure that warned participants focused on the prevention of the truth effect, we kept Experiment 2 as simple as possible: Unlike Experiment 1, there was only a single test phase which directly followed the exposure phase and which did not require source judgments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unveiling the truth: warnings reduce the repetition-based truth effect

Nadarevic

Aßfalg

2016

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically, people are more likely to consider a previously seen or heard statement as true compared to a novel statement. This repetition-based "truth effect" is thought to rely on fluency-truth attributions as the underlying cognitive mechanism. In two experiments, we tested the nature of the fluency-attribution mechanism by means of warning instructions, which informed participants about the truth effect and asked them to prevent it. In Experiment 1, we instructed warned participants to consider whether a statement had already been presented in the experiment to avoid the truth effect. However, warnings did not significantly reduce the truth effect. In Experiment 2, we introduced control questions and reminders to ensure that participants understood the warning instruction. This time, warning reduced, but did not eliminate the truth effect. Assuming that the truth effect relies on fluency-truth attributions, this finding suggests that warned participants could control their attributions but did not disregard fluency altogether when making truth judgments. Further, we found no evidence that participants overdiscount the influence of fluency on their truth judgments.

show abstract

Section: Previous Debiasing Approachesmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unveiling the truth: warnings reduce the repetition-based truth effect

Nadarevic

Aßfalg

2016

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After Westerman and Greene (1996) showed the indirect effect, many researchers confirmed the effect using various cognitive tasks: letter-counting tasks, memory span tests, synonym-generation tasks (Westerman & Greene, 1998), tasks of determining attractiveness ratings for inverted faces (Bornstein & Wilson, 2004), articulatory suppression tasks (Miura & Itoh, 2016), tasks of pressing arrow keys (Aßfalg, Currie, & Bernstein, 2017), revealed tasks (Bornstein & Neely, 2001;Westerman & Greene, 1998), numerical addition tasks (Leynes, Landau, Walker, & Addante, 2005;, and anagram tasks (Aßfalg, Currie et al, 2017;Aßfalg & Nadarevic, 2015;Azimian-Faridani & Wilding, 2004;Bernstein, Rudd, Erdfelder, Godfrey, & Loftus, 2009;Bernstein, Whittlesea, & Loftus, 2002;Cameron & Hockley, 2000;Kronlund & Bernstein, 2006;Major & Hockley, 2007;Miura & Itoh, 2016;Verde & Rotello, 2003Westerman, 2000;Westerman, Miller, & Lloyd, 2017;Young, Peynircioğlu, & Hohman, 2009). While it has been shown that various cognitive tasks cause the revelation effect, few studies have found tasks that do not cause the effect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Revelation Effect Occurs Whether or Not Working Memory Is Occupied

Miura¹,

Itoh²

2018

PSYCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The revelation effect is a phenomenon wherein performing a cognitive task before a recognition judgment induces "old" responses. One of the theories for the occurrence mechanism of the revelation effect is the criterion shift account ). This account explains that because working memory is occupied when people solve a cognitive task, they adopt a more liberal criterion for recognition judgments immediately after a cognitive task than those with no preceding cognitive task. However, no studies of the revelation effect in which manipulation of working memory was intended have been conducted. We examined whether working memory load and capacity are related to the revelation effect. The results showed that neither the occurrence of the revelation effect nor its degree was affected by working memory load or capacity. As the results suggest working memory is not related to the revelation effect, a partially or entirely alternative account that can explain the revelation effect is needed.

show abstract

“…In Experiments 1 and 2, participants either solved a new anagram in each task trial (hard condition) or received the same anagram repeatedly (easy condition). Solving an anagram is the most common preceding task in revelation-effect research (e.g., Aßfalg & Nadarevic, 2015). In Experiments 3 and 4, we introduced a novel preceding task in which participants pressed a random sequence of arrow keys on a computer keyboard (hard condition) or pressed the same arrow key repeatedly (easy condition).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Task difficulty moderates the revelation effect

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tasks that precede a recognition probe induce a more liberal response criterion than do probes without tasks-the "revelation effect." For example, participants are more likely to claim that a stimulus is familiar directly after solving an anagram, relative to a condition without an anagram. Revelation effect hypotheses disagree whether hard preceding tasks should produce a larger revelation effect than easy preceding tasks. Although some studies have shown that hard tasks increase the revelation effect as compared to easy tasks, these studies suffered from a confound of task difficulty and task presence. Conversely, other studies have shown that the revelation effect is independent of task difficulty. In the present study, we used new task difficulty manipulations to test whether hard tasks produce larger revelation effects than easy tasks. Participants (N = 464) completed hard or easy preceding tasks, including anagrams (Exps. 1 and 2) and the typing of specific arrow key sequences (Exps. 3-6). With sample sizes typical of revelation effect experiments, the effect sizes of task difficulty on the revelation effect varied considerably across experiments. Despite this variability, a consistent data pattern emerged: Hard tasks produced larger revelation effects than easy tasks. Although the present study falsifies certain revelation effect hypotheses, the general vagueness of revelation effect hypotheses remains.

show abstract

A word of warning: Instructions and feedback cannot prevent the revelation effect

Cited by 8 publications

References 43 publications

Unveiling the truth: warnings reduce the repetition-based truth effect

Unveiling the truth: warnings reduce the repetition-based truth effect

The Revelation Effect Occurs Whether or Not Working Memory Is Occupied

Task difficulty moderates the revelation effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About