Is it all about the feeling? Affective and (meta-)cognitive mechanisms underlying the truth effect

Abstract

People are more likely to judge repeatedly perceived statements as true. A decisive explanation for this so-called truth effect is that the repeated information can be processed more fluently than new information and that this fluency experience renders the information more familiar and trustworthy. Little is known, however, regarding whether and how affective states and dispositional cognitive preferences influence the truth effect. To this end, we conducted two experiments in which we manipulated (a) processing fluency via repetition, (b) the time interval (10 min vs. 1 week) between repetitions, and (c) short-term affective states using the presentation of emotional faces (Experiment 1) or the presence of an irrelevant source for changes in affective states (Experiment 2). Additionally, we assessed the dispositional variables need for cognitive closure (NCC), preference for deliberation (PD) and preference for intuition (PI). Results of Experiment 1 showed that the truth effect was significantly reduced for statements that were followed by a negative prime, although this was the case only for the longer repetition lag. Furthermore, higher NCC and lower PD scores were associated with an increased truth effect. Results of Experiment 2 replicated the moderating role of NCC and further showed that participants, who were provided with an alternative source for changes in their affective states, showed a reduced truth effect. Together, the findings suggest that (a) fluency-related changes in affective states may be (co-)responsible for the truth effect, (b) the truth effect is decreased when the repetition interval is long rather than short, and (c) the truth effect is increased for individuals with a higher need for cognitive closure. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

Insight in the conspiracist’s mind

“…the echo chamber) they will see it as true and valuable (mere exposure). There is little doubt that processing fluency, often by mere repetition, can create a subjective sense of truth (Béna et al, 2022;Fazio et al, 2015Fazio et al, , 2022Hasher et al, 1977;Stump et al, 2022), but there is more to (conspiracy) belief formation than this.…”

How affect and repetition influence judgments of truth

“…Regarding the repetition-induced truth effect, affect manipulations can influence truth judgments directly. Stump et al (2021), in their Experiment 1, reported that the repetition-induced truth effect was weakened after a retention interval of one week, but not after a few minutes, when a negative facial expression was presented after the statement and before the judgment, which was line with this second mechanism.…”

“…In sum, the third mechanism refers to the link between positivity and fluency/familiarity. Based on this mechanism, our prediction was that positive affect leads to statements being perceived as more familiar/fluent and thus more true-a misattribution of positive affect, which, however, only works if participants do not attribute their positive feelings as coming from the experimental manipulation (Schwarz, 2012;Stump et al, 2021). This third mechanism would predict enhanced truth judgments, both for new and repeated statements, in the positive affect condition.…”

“…The effect of positive mood was negated only when participants were asked how they felt right after the mood induction, and were, therefore, able to attribute their mood to the induction procedure rather than coming from the stimuli. Stump et al (2021;Experiment 2) showed that participants who received bogus instruction that subliminal affective primes, which could induce affective changes, would be presented, showed a reduced repetition-induced truth effect compared to the group who did not receive this instruction and had no alternative source for affect attribution.…”

“…In this case, feelings come from an unrelated (incidental) source and could mislead participants in their judgments (Schwarz, 2012). So far, this line of research has used actual (Phaf & Rotteveel, 2005;Stump et al, 2021) or alleged (Claypool et al, 2008;Garcia-Marques et al, 2004) stimulus repetition, which might be a boundary condition for inducing the perception of stimulus familiarity and related processes.…”