Reading is believing: The truth effect and source credibility

Henkel, Linda A.; Mattson, Mark E.

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.018

Cited by 110 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In its explanation, the Supreme Court claimed that proper disclosure of funding agencies enables people to judge the accuracy and importance of a message based on its source (Liptak, 2011). Troublingly, the present data and other research on source monitoring have clearly shown that people frequently forget the source of retrieved information (for related phenomena, see the illusory truth effect, Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992;Henkel & Mattson, 2011; and the sleeper effect, Kumkale & Albarracin, 2004). Given its relevance to real-world learning phenomena, it is imperative that research continues to investigate the mechanisms that exacerbate and protect against source confusions.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity

Chan

Wilford

Hughes

2012

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking an intervening test between learning episodes can enhance later source recollection. Paradoxically, testing can also increase people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect -a finding termed retrievalenhanced suggestibility (RES, Chan, Thomas, & Bulevich, 2009). We conducted three experiments to examine this apparent contradiction. Experiment 1 extended the RES effect to a new set of materials. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that testing can produce opposite effects on memory suggestibility depending on the complexity of the source test. Specifically, retrieval facilitated source discriminations when the test contained only items with unique source origins. But when the source test included some items that had appeared in multiple sources, the intervening test actually increased source confusions. These results have implications for a wide variety of learning situations. We focused our discussion on eyewitness memory, source complexity, and reconsolidation. Taking an intervening test between learning episodes can enhance later source recollection.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity

Chan

Wilford

Hughes

2012

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, participants who plan to opt-out exhibited significantly higher negative emotional barriers towards organ donation. Moreover, the potential persuasiveness of information increases following readers perceptions of credibility (Henkel & Mattson, 2011). However, the myth-busting intervention targeted facts rather than feelings.…”

Section: Experimental Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘What if I'm not dead?’ – Myth‐busting and organ donation

Miller

Currie

O’Carroll

2018

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives In the United Kingdom, three people die every day awaiting an organ transplant. To address this, Scotland and England plan to follow Wales and introduce opt‐out donor consent. However, emotional barriers, myths, and misconceptions may deter potential registrants. Our objectives were to estimate the number of people who plan to opt‐out of the donor register and to test whether emotional barriers (e.g., medical mistrust) differentiated participants within this group. Finally, in an experimental manipulation, we tested whether intention to donate decreased by making emotional barriers more salient and increased following a widely used myth‐busting intervention. Design Mixed between–within design. Methods UK residents (n = 1,202) were asked whether they would choose opt‐in, deemed consent, or opt‐out/not sure if legislation changes to opt‐out. Participants also completed measures of donor intentions at baseline, following a 12‐item emotional barriers questionnaire and again, following a 9‐item myth‐busting intervention. Results Findings indicate that 66.1% of participants selected to opt‐in to the donor register, 24.3% selected deemed consent, and 9.4% selected opt‐out/not sure. Emotional barriers, notably fears surrounding bodily integrity, were significantly elevated in participants who selected opt‐out/not sure. Increasing the salience of emotional barriers reduced donor intentions in the opt‐out/not sure group. However, dispelling organ donation myths did not increase intention within this group. Conclusions If opt‐out legislation is introduced in Scotland and England, approximately 10% of participants plan to opt‐out or are not sure. Dispelling organ donation myths with facts may not be the best method of overcoming emotional barriers and increasing donor intentions for those planning to opt‐out. What is already known about this subject? In the United Kingdom, three people die every day waiting for an organ transplant. Although 90% of the UK population support organ donation, only 38% are registered donors. To address this, Scotland and England have recently proposed to introduce an opt‐out system of donor consent. To date, limited research has investigated public attitudes and intentions regarding opt‐out consent laws in Scotland and England. Emotional barriers (e.g., medical mistrust) are key factors that may deter potential registrants. However, no research has examined these barriers in relation to proposed opt‐out consent laws. Myth‐busting is widely used around the world as part of campaigns promoting organ donation. The NHS currently use a myth‐busting feature on their webpage to dispel harmful myths about organ donation; however, there is limited evidence of the impact this has on intentions to become an organ donor. What does this study add? Approximately 10% of UK participants plan to opt‐out or are unsure of their decision, if the law changes to opt‐out. Emotional barriers, notably, bodily integrity fears, are significantly elevated in people who plan to opt‐out. Increasing the ...

show abstract

“…Finally, repeated experience with the same environmental objects or events stabilizes their cognitive-emotional representations so that, e.g., familiarity with an object or information promotes learning about it and increases a sense of trust in the object or information ( Chang et al , 2010; d’Acremont et al , 2013; Henkel & Mattson, 2011). In addition, representations already formed will be updated as new items and information are accommodated to the store of acquired knowledge.…”

Section: From Neuroscientific To Anthropological Dimensions Of Believingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processes of believing: Where do they come from? What are they good for?

Seitz

Paloutzian

Angel³

2017

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the long scholarly discourse in Western theology and philosophy on religion, spirituality, and faith, explanations of what a belief and what believing is are still lacking. Recently, cognitive neuroscience research addressed the human capacity of believing. We present evidence suggesting that believing is a human brain function which results in probabilistic representations with attributes of personal meaning and value and thereby guides individuals' behavior. We propose that the same mental processes operating on narratives and rituals constitute belief systems in individuals and social groups. Our theoretical model of believing is suited to account for secular and non-secular belief formation. SummaryAlthough largely neglected in contemporary science, we will show that believing is a fundamental brain function on which individual and societal behavior is grounded.

show abstract

Reading is believing: The truth effect and source credibility

Cited by 110 publications

References 36 publications

Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity

Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity

‘What if I'm not dead?’ – Myth‐busting and organ donation

Processes of believing: Where do they come from? What are they good for?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About