Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

1932
Annual Reviews logo
Skip to content
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Psychology
  4. Volume 71, 2020
  5. Article

Abstract

Deceptive claims surround us, embedded in fake news, advertisements, political propaganda, and rumors. How do people know what to believe? Truth judgments reflect inferences drawn from three types of information: base rates, feelings, and consistency with information retrieved from memory. First, people exhibit a bias to accept incoming information, because most claims in our environments are true. Second, people interpret feelings, like ease of processing, as evidence of truth. And third, people can (but do not always) consider whether assertions match facts and source information stored in memory. This three-part framework predicts specific illusions (e.g., truthiness, illusory truth), offers ways to correct stubborn misconceptions, and suggests the importance of converging cues in a post-truth world, where falsehoods travel further and faster than the truth.

    Loading

    Article metrics loading...

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    2020-01-04
    2025-03-28
    Download as PowerPoint
    Loading full text...

    Full text loading...

    /deliver/fulltext/psych/71/1/annurev-psych-010419-050807.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

    Literature Cited

    1. AlbarracinD,ShavittS.2018. Attitudes and attitude change.Annu. Rev. Psychol.69:299–327
      [Google Scholar]
    2. AlterAL,OppenheimerDM.2009. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.13:219–35
      [Google Scholar]
    3. AlterAL,OppenheimerDM,EpleyN,EyreRN2007. Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen136:569–76
      [Google Scholar]
    4. ArkesHR,HackettC,BoehmL1989. The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity.J. Behav. Decis. Mak.2:81–94
      [Google Scholar]
    5. AxelrodR.1984.The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books
      [Google Scholar]
    6. BaconFT.1979. Credibility of repeated statements: memory for trivia.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem.5:241–52
      [Google Scholar]
    7. BailCA,ArgyleLP,BrownTW,BumpusJP,ChenH et al.2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.PNAS115:9216–21
      [Google Scholar]
    8. BartonSB,SanfordAJ.1993. A case study of anomaly detection: shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment.Mem. Cogn.21:477–87
      [Google Scholar]
    9. BeggI,AnasA,FarinacciS1992. Dissociation of processes in belief: source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.121:446–58
      [Google Scholar]
    10. BeggI,ArmourV,KerrT1985. On believing what we remember.Can. J. Behav. Sci17:199–214
      [Google Scholar]
    11. BenoitRG,SzpunarKK,SchacterDL2014. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex supports affective future simulation by integrating distributed knowledge.PNAS111:16550–55
      [Google Scholar]
    12. Bobadilla-SuarezS,LoveBC.2018. Fast or frugal, but not both: decision heuristics under time pressure.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.44:24–33
      [Google Scholar]
    13. BondCF,DePauloBM.2006. Accuracy of deception judgments.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.10:214–34
      [Google Scholar]
    14. BondCF,DePauloBM.2008. Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.Psychol. Bull.134:477–92Meta-analysis concludes that people detect deception at rates close to chance.
      [Google Scholar]
    15. BornsteinRF,D'AgostinoPR.1994. The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect.Soc. Cogn.12:103–28
      [Google Scholar]
    16. BransfordJD,JohnsonMK.1972. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall.J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav.11:717–26
      [Google Scholar]
    17. BrashierNM,EliseevED,MarshEJ2020. An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth.Cognition 194:104054
      [Google Scholar]
    18. BrashierNM,UmanathS,CabezaR,MarshEJ2017. Competing cues: Older adults rely on knowledge in the face of fluency.Psychol. Aging32:331–37Older adults reject fluent falsehoods that contradict their knowledge.
      [Google Scholar]
    19. BrownAS,NixLA.1996. Turning lies into truths: referential validation of falsehoods.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.22:1088–100
      [Google Scholar]
    20. BrysbaertM,StevensM,ManderaP,KeuleersE2016. How many words do we know? Practical estimates of vocabulary size dependent on word definition, the degree of language input and the participant's age..Front. Psychol7:1116
      [Google Scholar]
    21. CarrEW,BradyTF,WinkielmanP2017. Are you smiling or have I seen you before? Familiarity makes faces look happier.Psychol. Sci28:1087–102
      [Google Scholar]
    22. CarrEW,RotteveelM,WinkielmanP2016. Easy moves: Perceptual fluency facilitates approach-related action.Emotion16:540–52
      [Google Scholar]
    23. ChanMS,JonesCR,JamiesonKH,AlbarracínD2017. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation.Psychol. Sci.28:1531–46
      [Google Scholar]
    24. ClaypoolHM,HallCE,MackieDM,Garcia-MarquesT2008. Positive mood, attribution, and the illusion of familiarity.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.44:721–28
      [Google Scholar]
    25. De KeersmaeckerJ,DunningD,PennycookG,RandDG,SanchezC et al.2019. Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull In press.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853844
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    26. DechêneA,StahlC,HansenJ,WänkeM2009. Mix me a list: Context moderates the truth effect and the mere-exposure effect.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.45:1117–22
      [Google Scholar]
    27. DechêneA,StahlC,HansenJ,WänkeM2010. The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.14:238–57Meta-analysis confirms that repetition increases perceived truth.
      [Google Scholar]
    28. DiFonzoN,BecksteadJW,StupakN,WaldersK2016. Validity judgments of rumors heard multiple times: the shape of the truth effect.Soc. Influ.11:22–39
      [Google Scholar]
    29. DunningD,FetchenhauerD,SchlösserT2019. Why people trust: solved puzzles and open mysteries.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.28:366–71
      [Google Scholar]
    30. EckerUKH,HoganJL,LewandowskyS2017. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction?.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn6:185–92
      [Google Scholar]
    31. EckerUKH,LewandowskyS,ChangEP,PillaiR2014. The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines.J. Exp. Psychol. Appl.20:323–25
      [Google Scholar]
    32. EricksonTD,MattsonME.1981. From words to meaning: a semantic illusion.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav.20:540–51
      [Google Scholar]
    33. FalkE,ScholzC.2018. Persuasion, influence, and value: perspectives from communication and social neuroscience.Annu. Rev. Psychol.69:329–56
      [Google Scholar]
    34. FazioLK,BrashierNM,PayneBK,MarshEJ2015. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen144:993–1002Illusory truth occurs even when claims contradict well-known facts.
      [Google Scholar]
    35. FazioLK,RandDG,PennycookG2019. Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements.Psychon. Bull. Rev In press.https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01651-4
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    36. FennE,NewmanEJ,PezdekK,GarryM2013. The effect of nonprobative photographs on truthiness persists over time.Acta Psychol144:207–11
      [Google Scholar]
    37. FennE,RamsayN,KantnerJ,PezdekK,AbedE2019. Nonprobative photos increase truth, like, and share judgments in a simulated social media environment.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.8:131–38
      [Google Scholar]
    38. FernbachPM,LightN,ScottSE,InbarY,RozinP2019. Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most.Nat. Hum. Behav.3:251–56
      [Google Scholar]
    39. FerreiraF,BaileyKGD,FerraroV2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.11:11–15
      [Google Scholar]
    40. FiskeST,TaylorSE.1991.Social Cognition New York: McGraw-Hill. , 2nd ed..
      [Google Scholar]
    41. ForgasJP.2019. Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci28:306–13
      [Google Scholar]
    42. ForgasJP,EastR.2008. On being happy and gullible: mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.44:1362–67
      [Google Scholar]
    43. FragaleAR,HeathC.2004. Evolving information credentials: the (mis)attribution of believable facts to credible sources.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.30:225–36Sad mood wipes out illusory truth.
      [Google Scholar]
    44. GabielkovM,RamachandranA,ChaintreauA,LegoutA2016. Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter?.ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev44:179–92
      [Google Scholar]
    45. Garcia-MarquesT,MackieDM,ClaypoolHM,Garcia-MarquesL2004. Positivity can cue familiarity.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull30:585–93
      [Google Scholar]
    46. Garcia-MarquesT,SilvaRR,MelloJ,HansenJ2019. Relative to what? Dynamic updates of fluency standards and between-participants illusions of truth.Acta Psychol195:71–79
      [Google Scholar]
    47. Garcia-MarquesT,SilvaRR,ReberR,UnkelbachC2015. Hearing a statement now and believing the opposite later.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.56:126–29
      [Google Scholar]
    48. Gartner, Inc2017.Gartner top strategic predictions for 2018 and beyond Rep., Gartner, Inc Stamford, CT:https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/gartner-top-strategic-predictions-for-2018-and-beyond/
      [Google Scholar]
    49. GehlbachH,RobinsonCD,VriesemaCC2019. Leveraging cognitive consistency to nudge conservative climate change beliefs.J. Environ. Psychol.61:134–37
      [Google Scholar]
    50. GigerenzerG.2002. The adaptive toolbox.Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox G Gigerenzer, R Selten37–50 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
      [Google Scholar]
    51. GigerenzerG,GaissmaierW.2011. Heuristic decision making.Annu. Rev. Psychol62:451–82
      [Google Scholar]
    52. GilbertDT.1991. How mental systems believe.Am. Psychol46:107–19Proposes that people accept claims in order to comprehend them.
      [Google Scholar]
    53. GilbertDT,KrullD,MaloneP1990. Unbelieving the unbelievable: some problems in the rejection of false information.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.59:601–13
      [Google Scholar]
    54. GilbertDT,TafarodiRW,MalonePS1993. You can't not believe everything you read.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol65:221–33
      [Google Scholar]
    55. GileadM,SelaM,MarilA2019. That's my truth: evidence for involuntary opinion confirmation.Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci.10:393–401
      [Google Scholar]
    56. GordonA,QuadfliegS,BrooksJCW,EckerUKH,LewandowskyS2019. Keeping track of “alternative facts”: the neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections.Neuroimage93:46–56
      [Google Scholar]
    57. GreifenederR,BlessH,PhamMT2011. When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev15:107–41
      [Google Scholar]
    58. GrinbergN,JosephK,FriedlandL,Swire-ThompsonB,LazerD2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.Science25:374–78
      [Google Scholar]
    59. GuessA,NaglerJ,TuckerJ2019. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook.Sci. Adv5: eaau4586
      [Google Scholar]
    60. HartshorneJK,GermineJT.2015. When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span.Psychol. Sci26:433–43
      [Google Scholar]
    61. HartwigM,BondCF.2011. Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments.Psychol. Bull137:643–59
      [Google Scholar]
    62. HasherL,GoldsteinD,ToppinoT1977. Frequency and the conference of referential validity.J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav.16:107–12First demonstration of illusory truth.
      [Google Scholar]
    63. HenkelLA,MattsonME.2011. Reading is believing: the truth effect and source credibility.Conscious. Cogn.20:1705–21
      [Google Scholar]
    64. HernandezI,PrestonJL.2013. Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.49:178–82
      [Google Scholar]
    65. HinzeSR,SlatenDG,HortonWS,JenkinsR,RappDN2014. Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: plausibility effects on memory for misinformation.Mem. Cogn.42:305–24
      [Google Scholar]
    66. HirshleiferD,ShumwayT.2003. Good day sunshine: stock returns and the weather.J. Finance58:1009–32
      [Google Scholar]
    67. HourihanKL,BurseyE.2017. A misleading feeling of happiness: metamemory for positive emotional and neutral pictures.Memory25:35–43
      [Google Scholar]
    68. IyengarSS,LepperMR.2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol79:995–1006
      [Google Scholar]
    69. JenkinsR,DowsettAJ,BurtonAM2018. How many faces do people know?.Proc. R. Soc. B285:20181319
      [Google Scholar]
    70. JoharGV,RoggeveenAL.2007. Changing false beliefs from repeated advertising: the role of claim-refutation alignment.J. Consum. Psychol.17:118–27
      [Google Scholar]
    71. JohnsonE,TverskyA.1983. Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.45:20–31
      [Google Scholar]
    72. KochA,ForgasJP.2012. Feeling good and feeling truth: the interactive effects of mood and processing fluency on truth judgments.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.48:481–85
      [Google Scholar]
    73. KohlerI.1962. Experiments with goggles.Sci. Am.206:62–86
      [Google Scholar]
    74. KramerADI,GuilloryJE,HancockJT2014. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.PNAS111:8788–90
      [Google Scholar]
    75. LernerJS,LiY,ValdesoloP,KassamKS2015. Emotion and decision making.Annu. Rev. Psychol.66:799–823
      [Google Scholar]
    76. Lev-AriS,KeysarB.2010. Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol46:1093–96
      [Google Scholar]
    77. LewandowskyS,EckerUKH,CookJ2017. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.6:353–69
      [Google Scholar]
    78. LewandowskyS,EckerUKH,SeifertCM,SchwarzN,CookJ2012. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing.Psychol. Sci. Public Interest13:106–31
      [Google Scholar]
    79. MarshEJ,FazioLK.2006. Learning errors from fiction: difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories.Mem. Cogn.34:1140–49
      [Google Scholar]
    80. MarshEJ,RajaramS.2019. The digital expansion of the mind: implications of Internet usage for memory and cognition.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.8:1–14
      [Google Scholar]
    81. MarshEJ,UmanathS.2014. Knowledge neglect: failures to notice contradictions with stored knowledge.Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences, DN Rapp, J Braasch161–80 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
      [Google Scholar]
    82. MarshEJ,YangBW.2017. A call to think broadly about information literacy.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.6:401–4
      [Google Scholar]
    83. McGloneMS,TofighbakhshJ.2000. Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): rhyme as reason in aphorisms.Psychol. Sci.11:424–28
      [Google Scholar]
    84. MeyerBJ,RussoC,TalbotA1995. Discourse comprehension and problem solving: decisions about the treatment of breast cancer by women across the life span.Psychol. Aging10:84–103
      [Google Scholar]
    85. MitchellJP,DodsonCS,SchacterDL2005. fMRI evidence for the role of recollection in suppressing misattribution errors: the illusory truth effect.J. Cogn. Neurosci.17:800–10
      [Google Scholar]
    86. MitchellKJ,JohnsonMK.2009. Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?.Psychol. Bull135:638–77
      [Google Scholar]
    87. MonahanJL,MurphyST,ZajoncRB2000. Subliminal mere exposure: specific, general, and diffuse effects.Psychol. Sci.11:462–66
      [Google Scholar]
    88. NadarevicL,AßfalgA.2017. Unveiling the truth: Warnings reduce the repetition-based truth effect.Psychol. Res.81:814–26
      [Google Scholar]
    89. NewellBR,ShanksDR.2003. Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing “one reason” decision making..J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn29:53–65
      [Google Scholar]
    90. NewmanEJ,AzadT,LindsayDS,GarryM2018. Evidence that photos promote rosiness for claims about the future.Mem. Cognit.46:1223–33
      [Google Scholar]
    91. NewmanEJ,GarryM,BernsteinDM,KantnerJ,LindsayDS2012. Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness.Psychon. Bull. Rev19:969–74
      [Google Scholar]
    92. NewmanEJ,GarryM,UnkelbachC,BernsteinDM,LindsayDS,NashRA2015. Truthiness and falsiness of trivia claims depend on judgmental contexts.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.41:1337–48
      [Google Scholar]
    93. NewmanEJ,SansonM,MillerEK,Quigley-McBrideA,FosterJL et al.2014. People with easier to pronounce names promote truthiness of claims.PLOS ONE9:e88671
      [Google Scholar]
    94. O'BrienE.2019. Enjoy it again: Repeat experiences are less repetitive than people think.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.116:519–40
      [Google Scholar]
    95. O'ConnorK,CheemaA.2018. Do evaluations rise with experience?.Psychol. Sci29:779–90
      [Google Scholar]
    96. OppenheimerD.2004. Spontaneous discounting of availability in frequency judgment tasks.Psychol. Sci.15:100–5
      [Google Scholar]
    97. PennycookG,CannonTD,RandDG2018. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news but has no effect on entirely implausible statements.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.147:1865–80
      [Google Scholar]
    98. PennycookG,RandDG.2019a. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality.PNAS116:2521–26
      [Google Scholar]
    99. PennycookG,RandDG.2019b. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning.Cognition188:39–50Lazy thinking, not motivated reasoning, explains belief in fake news.
      [Google Scholar]
    100. PennycookG,RandDG.2019c. The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news stories increases perceived accuracy of stories without warnings.Manag. Sci In press
      [Google Scholar]
    101. PennycookG,RandDG.2019d. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking.J. Pers In press.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    102. Pew Res. Cent2018.Distinguishing between factual and opinion statements in the news Rep., Pew Res. Cent Washington, DC:https://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news
      [Google Scholar]
    103. PutnamAL,PhelpsRJ.2017. The citation effect: In-text citations moderately increase belief in trivia claims.Acta Psychol179:114–23
      [Google Scholar]
    104. ReberR,SchwarzN.1999. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth.Conscious. Cogn.8:338–42
      [Google Scholar]
    105. ReberR,SchwarzN,WinkielmanP2004. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev8:364–82
      [Google Scholar]
    106. RederLM,KusbitGW.1991. Locus of the Moses illusion: imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?.J. Mem. Lang30:385–406
      [Google Scholar]
    107. RedlmeierDA,BaxterSD.2009. Rainy weather and medical school admission interviews.Can. Med. Assoc. J.181:933
      [Google Scholar]
    108. ReedAE,MikelsJA,SimonKI2008. Older adults prefer less choice than young adults.Psychol. Aging23:671–75
      [Google Scholar]
    109. RienerCR,StefanucciJK,ProffittDR,CloreG2011. An effect of mood on the perception of geographical slant.Cogn. Emot.25:174–82
      [Google Scholar]
    110. RozinP,MarkwithM,RossB1990. The sympathetic magical law of similarity, nominal realism and neglect of negatives in response to negative labels.Psychol. Sci.1:383–84
      [Google Scholar]
    111. RuderM,BlessH.2003. Mood and the reliance on the ease of retrieval heuristic.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.85:20–32
      [Google Scholar]
    112. SchollSG,GreifenederR,BlessH2014. When fluency signals truth: Prior successful reliance on fluency moderates the impact of fluency on truth judgments.J. Behav. Decis. Mak.27:268–80
      [Google Scholar]
    113. SchwartzBL,MetcalfeJ.1992. Cue familiarity but not target retrievability enhances feeling-of-knowing judgments.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn18:1074–83
      [Google Scholar]
    114. SchwarzN.2002. Situated cognition and the wisdom in feelings: Cognitive tuning.The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological Processes in Emotional Intelligence LF Barrett, P Salovey144–66 New York: Guilford Press
      [Google Scholar]
    115. SchwarzN.2012. Feelings-as-information theory.Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology PM Van Lange, AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins289–308 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
      [Google Scholar]
    116. SerotaKB,LevineTR,BosterFJ2010. The prevalence of lying in America: three studies of self-reported lies.Hum. Commun. Res.36:2–25
      [Google Scholar]
    117. SerweS,FringsC.2006. Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events.J. Behav. Decis. Mak19:321–32
      [Google Scholar]
    118. SnookB,TaylorPJ,BennellC2004. Geographic profiling: the fast, frugal, and accurate way.Appl. Cogn. Psychol.18:105–21
      [Google Scholar]
    119. SongHJ,SchwarzN.2008. Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion.Soc. Cogn.26:791–99
      [Google Scholar]
    120. StormBC,StoneSM,BenjaminAS2017. Using the Internet to access information inflates future use of the Internet to access other information.Memory25:717–23
      [Google Scholar]
    121. SwireB,EckerUKH,LewandowskyS2017. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.43:1948–61
      [Google Scholar]
    122. TenenbaumJB,GriffithTL,KempC2006. Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.Trends Cogn. Sci.10:309–18
      [Google Scholar]
    123. UnkelbachC.2007. Reversing the truth effect: learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.33:219–30People can reverse the fluency heuristic with feedback.
      [Google Scholar]
    124. UnkelbachC,BayerM,AlvesH,KochA,StahlC2011. Fluency and positivity as possible causes of the truth effect.Conscious. Cogn.20:594–602
      [Google Scholar]
    125. UnkelbachC,GreifenederR.2018. Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.79:78–86
      [Google Scholar]
    126. UnkelbachC,KochA,SilvaRA,Garcia-MarquesT2019. Truth by repetition: explanations and implications.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.28:247–53
      [Google Scholar]
    127. UnkelbachC,RomSC.2017. A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect.Cognition160:110–26
      [Google Scholar]
    128. UnkelbachC,StahlC.2009. A multinomial modeling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect.Conscious. Cogn.18:22–38
      [Google Scholar]
    129. UseemJ.2017. Power causes brain damage.The Atlantic, July/Aug.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711
    130. van OostendorpH,de MulS1990. Moses beats Adam: a semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion.Acta Psychol74:35–46
      [Google Scholar]
    131. VosoughiS,RoyD,AralS2018. The spread of true and false news online.Science359:1146–51Falsehoods diffuse faster than the truth on Twitter.
      [Google Scholar]
    132. WadeKA,GarryM,ReadJD,LindsayDS2002. A picture is worth a thousand lies: using false photographs to create false childhood memories.Psychon. Bull. Rev.9:597–603
      [Google Scholar]
    133. WangW,BrashierNM,WingEA,MarshEJ,CabezaR2016. On known unknowns: fluency and the neural mechanisms of the illusory truth effect.J. Cogn. Neurosci.28:739–46
      [Google Scholar]
    134. WinkielmanP,CacioppoJT.2001. Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.81:989–1000
      [Google Scholar]
    135. WixtedJT.2004. On common ground: Jost's (1897) law of forgetting and Ribot's (1881) law of retrograde amnesia.Psych. Rev.111:864–79
      [Google Scholar]
    136. YangX,LiY,LyuS2018. Exposing deep fakes using inconsistent head poses. arXiv:1811.00661 [cs.CV]
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    Loading
    Judging Truth
    Annual Review of Psychology71, 499 (2020);https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    Loading

    Data & Media loading...

    Most Read This Month

    Article
    content/journals/psych
    Journal
    5
    3
    false
    en
    Loading

    Most CitedMost Cited RSS feed

    Related Articles from Annual Reviews

    /content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    4
    4

    Literature Cited

    1. AlbarracinD,ShavittS.2018. Attitudes and attitude change.Annu. Rev. Psychol.69:299–327
      [Google Scholar]
    2. AlterAL,OppenheimerDM.2009. Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.13:219–35
      [Google Scholar]
    3. AlterAL,OppenheimerDM,EpleyN,EyreRN2007. Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen136:569–76
      [Google Scholar]
    4. ArkesHR,HackettC,BoehmL1989. The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity.J. Behav. Decis. Mak.2:81–94
      [Google Scholar]
    5. AxelrodR.1984.The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books
      [Google Scholar]
    6. BaconFT.1979. Credibility of repeated statements: memory for trivia.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem.5:241–52
      [Google Scholar]
    7. BailCA,ArgyleLP,BrownTW,BumpusJP,ChenH et al.2018. Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization.PNAS115:9216–21
      [Google Scholar]
    8. BartonSB,SanfordAJ.1993. A case study of anomaly detection: shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment.Mem. Cogn.21:477–87
      [Google Scholar]
    9. BeggI,AnasA,FarinacciS1992. Dissociation of processes in belief: source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.121:446–58
      [Google Scholar]
    10. BeggI,ArmourV,KerrT1985. On believing what we remember.Can. J. Behav. Sci17:199–214
      [Google Scholar]
    11. BenoitRG,SzpunarKK,SchacterDL2014. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex supports affective future simulation by integrating distributed knowledge.PNAS111:16550–55
      [Google Scholar]
    12. Bobadilla-SuarezS,LoveBC.2018. Fast or frugal, but not both: decision heuristics under time pressure.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.44:24–33
      [Google Scholar]
    13. BondCF,DePauloBM.2006. Accuracy of deception judgments.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.10:214–34
      [Google Scholar]
    14. BondCF,DePauloBM.2008. Individual differences in judging deception: accuracy and bias.Psychol. Bull.134:477–92Meta-analysis concludes that people detect deception at rates close to chance.
      [Google Scholar]
    15. BornsteinRF,D'AgostinoPR.1994. The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect.Soc. Cogn.12:103–28
      [Google Scholar]
    16. BransfordJD,JohnsonMK.1972. Contextual prerequisites for understanding: some investigations of comprehension and recall.J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav.11:717–26
      [Google Scholar]
    17. BrashierNM,EliseevED,MarshEJ2020. An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth.Cognition 194:104054
      [Google Scholar]
    18. BrashierNM,UmanathS,CabezaR,MarshEJ2017. Competing cues: Older adults rely on knowledge in the face of fluency.Psychol. Aging32:331–37Older adults reject fluent falsehoods that contradict their knowledge.
      [Google Scholar]
    19. BrownAS,NixLA.1996. Turning lies into truths: referential validation of falsehoods.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.22:1088–100
      [Google Scholar]
    20. BrysbaertM,StevensM,ManderaP,KeuleersE2016. How many words do we know? Practical estimates of vocabulary size dependent on word definition, the degree of language input and the participant's age..Front. Psychol7:1116
      [Google Scholar]
    21. CarrEW,BradyTF,WinkielmanP2017. Are you smiling or have I seen you before? Familiarity makes faces look happier.Psychol. Sci28:1087–102
      [Google Scholar]
    22. CarrEW,RotteveelM,WinkielmanP2016. Easy moves: Perceptual fluency facilitates approach-related action.Emotion16:540–52
      [Google Scholar]
    23. ChanMS,JonesCR,JamiesonKH,AlbarracínD2017. Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation.Psychol. Sci.28:1531–46
      [Google Scholar]
    24. ClaypoolHM,HallCE,MackieDM,Garcia-MarquesT2008. Positive mood, attribution, and the illusion of familiarity.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.44:721–28
      [Google Scholar]
    25. De KeersmaeckerJ,DunningD,PennycookG,RandDG,SanchezC et al.2019. Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull In press.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853844
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    26. DechêneA,StahlC,HansenJ,WänkeM2009. Mix me a list: Context moderates the truth effect and the mere-exposure effect.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.45:1117–22
      [Google Scholar]
    27. DechêneA,StahlC,HansenJ,WänkeM2010. The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev.14:238–57Meta-analysis confirms that repetition increases perceived truth.
      [Google Scholar]
    28. DiFonzoN,BecksteadJW,StupakN,WaldersK2016. Validity judgments of rumors heard multiple times: the shape of the truth effect.Soc. Influ.11:22–39
      [Google Scholar]
    29. DunningD,FetchenhauerD,SchlösserT2019. Why people trust: solved puzzles and open mysteries.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.28:366–71
      [Google Scholar]
    30. EckerUKH,HoganJL,LewandowskyS2017. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction?.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn6:185–92
      [Google Scholar]
    31. EckerUKH,LewandowskyS,ChangEP,PillaiR2014. The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines.J. Exp. Psychol. Appl.20:323–25
      [Google Scholar]
    32. EricksonTD,MattsonME.1981. From words to meaning: a semantic illusion.J. Verb. Learn. Verb. Behav.20:540–51
      [Google Scholar]
    33. FalkE,ScholzC.2018. Persuasion, influence, and value: perspectives from communication and social neuroscience.Annu. Rev. Psychol.69:329–56
      [Google Scholar]
    34. FazioLK,BrashierNM,PayneBK,MarshEJ2015. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen144:993–1002Illusory truth occurs even when claims contradict well-known facts.
      [Google Scholar]
    35. FazioLK,RandDG,PennycookG2019. Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements.Psychon. Bull. Rev In press.https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01651-4
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    36. FennE,NewmanEJ,PezdekK,GarryM2013. The effect of nonprobative photographs on truthiness persists over time.Acta Psychol144:207–11
      [Google Scholar]
    37. FennE,RamsayN,KantnerJ,PezdekK,AbedE2019. Nonprobative photos increase truth, like, and share judgments in a simulated social media environment.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.8:131–38
      [Google Scholar]
    38. FernbachPM,LightN,ScottSE,InbarY,RozinP2019. Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most.Nat. Hum. Behav.3:251–56
      [Google Scholar]
    39. FerreiraF,BaileyKGD,FerraroV2002. Good-enough representations in language comprehension.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.11:11–15
      [Google Scholar]
    40. FiskeST,TaylorSE.1991.Social Cognition New York: McGraw-Hill. , 2nd ed..
      [Google Scholar]
    41. ForgasJP.2019. Happy believers and sad skeptics? Affective influences on gullibility.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci28:306–13
      [Google Scholar]
    42. ForgasJP,EastR.2008. On being happy and gullible: mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.44:1362–67
      [Google Scholar]
    43. FragaleAR,HeathC.2004. Evolving information credentials: the (mis)attribution of believable facts to credible sources.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.30:225–36Sad mood wipes out illusory truth.
      [Google Scholar]
    44. GabielkovM,RamachandranA,ChaintreauA,LegoutA2016. Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter?.ACM SIGMETRICS Perform. Eval. Rev44:179–92
      [Google Scholar]
    45. Garcia-MarquesT,MackieDM,ClaypoolHM,Garcia-MarquesL2004. Positivity can cue familiarity.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull30:585–93
      [Google Scholar]
    46. Garcia-MarquesT,SilvaRR,MelloJ,HansenJ2019. Relative to what? Dynamic updates of fluency standards and between-participants illusions of truth.Acta Psychol195:71–79
      [Google Scholar]
    47. Garcia-MarquesT,SilvaRR,ReberR,UnkelbachC2015. Hearing a statement now and believing the opposite later.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.56:126–29
      [Google Scholar]
    48. Gartner, Inc2017.Gartner top strategic predictions for 2018 and beyond Rep., Gartner, Inc Stamford, CT:https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/gartner-top-strategic-predictions-for-2018-and-beyond/
      [Google Scholar]
    49. GehlbachH,RobinsonCD,VriesemaCC2019. Leveraging cognitive consistency to nudge conservative climate change beliefs.J. Environ. Psychol.61:134–37
      [Google Scholar]
    50. GigerenzerG.2002. The adaptive toolbox.Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox G Gigerenzer, R Selten37–50 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
      [Google Scholar]
    51. GigerenzerG,GaissmaierW.2011. Heuristic decision making.Annu. Rev. Psychol62:451–82
      [Google Scholar]
    52. GilbertDT.1991. How mental systems believe.Am. Psychol46:107–19Proposes that people accept claims in order to comprehend them.
      [Google Scholar]
    53. GilbertDT,KrullD,MaloneP1990. Unbelieving the unbelievable: some problems in the rejection of false information.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.59:601–13
      [Google Scholar]
    54. GilbertDT,TafarodiRW,MalonePS1993. You can't not believe everything you read.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol65:221–33
      [Google Scholar]
    55. GileadM,SelaM,MarilA2019. That's my truth: evidence for involuntary opinion confirmation.Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci.10:393–401
      [Google Scholar]
    56. GordonA,QuadfliegS,BrooksJCW,EckerUKH,LewandowskyS2019. Keeping track of “alternative facts”: the neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections.Neuroimage93:46–56
      [Google Scholar]
    57. GreifenederR,BlessH,PhamMT2011. When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev15:107–41
      [Google Scholar]
    58. GrinbergN,JosephK,FriedlandL,Swire-ThompsonB,LazerD2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.Science25:374–78
      [Google Scholar]
    59. GuessA,NaglerJ,TuckerJ2019. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook.Sci. Adv5: eaau4586
      [Google Scholar]
    60. HartshorneJK,GermineJT.2015. When does cognitive functioning peak? The asynchronous rise and fall of different cognitive abilities across the life span.Psychol. Sci26:433–43
      [Google Scholar]
    61. HartwigM,BondCF.2011. Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments.Psychol. Bull137:643–59
      [Google Scholar]
    62. HasherL,GoldsteinD,ToppinoT1977. Frequency and the conference of referential validity.J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav.16:107–12First demonstration of illusory truth.
      [Google Scholar]
    63. HenkelLA,MattsonME.2011. Reading is believing: the truth effect and source credibility.Conscious. Cogn.20:1705–21
      [Google Scholar]
    64. HernandezI,PrestonJL.2013. Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.49:178–82
      [Google Scholar]
    65. HinzeSR,SlatenDG,HortonWS,JenkinsR,RappDN2014. Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: plausibility effects on memory for misinformation.Mem. Cogn.42:305–24
      [Google Scholar]
    66. HirshleiferD,ShumwayT.2003. Good day sunshine: stock returns and the weather.J. Finance58:1009–32
      [Google Scholar]
    67. HourihanKL,BurseyE.2017. A misleading feeling of happiness: metamemory for positive emotional and neutral pictures.Memory25:35–43
      [Google Scholar]
    68. IyengarSS,LepperMR.2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol79:995–1006
      [Google Scholar]
    69. JenkinsR,DowsettAJ,BurtonAM2018. How many faces do people know?.Proc. R. Soc. B285:20181319
      [Google Scholar]
    70. JoharGV,RoggeveenAL.2007. Changing false beliefs from repeated advertising: the role of claim-refutation alignment.J. Consum. Psychol.17:118–27
      [Google Scholar]
    71. JohnsonE,TverskyA.1983. Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.45:20–31
      [Google Scholar]
    72. KochA,ForgasJP.2012. Feeling good and feeling truth: the interactive effects of mood and processing fluency on truth judgments.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.48:481–85
      [Google Scholar]
    73. KohlerI.1962. Experiments with goggles.Sci. Am.206:62–86
      [Google Scholar]
    74. KramerADI,GuilloryJE,HancockJT2014. Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks.PNAS111:8788–90
      [Google Scholar]
    75. LernerJS,LiY,ValdesoloP,KassamKS2015. Emotion and decision making.Annu. Rev. Psychol.66:799–823
      [Google Scholar]
    76. Lev-AriS,KeysarB.2010. Why don't we believe non-native speakers? The influence of accent on credibility.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol46:1093–96
      [Google Scholar]
    77. LewandowskyS,EckerUKH,CookJ2017. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.6:353–69
      [Google Scholar]
    78. LewandowskyS,EckerUKH,SeifertCM,SchwarzN,CookJ2012. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing.Psychol. Sci. Public Interest13:106–31
      [Google Scholar]
    79. MarshEJ,FazioLK.2006. Learning errors from fiction: difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories.Mem. Cogn.34:1140–49
      [Google Scholar]
    80. MarshEJ,RajaramS.2019. The digital expansion of the mind: implications of Internet usage for memory and cognition.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.8:1–14
      [Google Scholar]
    81. MarshEJ,UmanathS.2014. Knowledge neglect: failures to notice contradictions with stored knowledge.Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences, DN Rapp, J Braasch161–80 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
      [Google Scholar]
    82. MarshEJ,YangBW.2017. A call to think broadly about information literacy.J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn.6:401–4
      [Google Scholar]
    83. McGloneMS,TofighbakhshJ.2000. Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): rhyme as reason in aphorisms.Psychol. Sci.11:424–28
      [Google Scholar]
    84. MeyerBJ,RussoC,TalbotA1995. Discourse comprehension and problem solving: decisions about the treatment of breast cancer by women across the life span.Psychol. Aging10:84–103
      [Google Scholar]
    85. MitchellJP,DodsonCS,SchacterDL2005. fMRI evidence for the role of recollection in suppressing misattribution errors: the illusory truth effect.J. Cogn. Neurosci.17:800–10
      [Google Scholar]
    86. MitchellKJ,JohnsonMK.2009. Source monitoring 15 years later: What have we learned from fMRI about the neural mechanisms of source memory?.Psychol. Bull135:638–77
      [Google Scholar]
    87. MonahanJL,MurphyST,ZajoncRB2000. Subliminal mere exposure: specific, general, and diffuse effects.Psychol. Sci.11:462–66
      [Google Scholar]
    88. NadarevicL,AßfalgA.2017. Unveiling the truth: Warnings reduce the repetition-based truth effect.Psychol. Res.81:814–26
      [Google Scholar]
    89. NewellBR,ShanksDR.2003. Take the best or look at the rest? Factors influencing “one reason” decision making..J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn29:53–65
      [Google Scholar]
    90. NewmanEJ,AzadT,LindsayDS,GarryM2018. Evidence that photos promote rosiness for claims about the future.Mem. Cognit.46:1223–33
      [Google Scholar]
    91. NewmanEJ,GarryM,BernsteinDM,KantnerJ,LindsayDS2012. Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness.Psychon. Bull. Rev19:969–74
      [Google Scholar]
    92. NewmanEJ,GarryM,UnkelbachC,BernsteinDM,LindsayDS,NashRA2015. Truthiness and falsiness of trivia claims depend on judgmental contexts.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.41:1337–48
      [Google Scholar]
    93. NewmanEJ,SansonM,MillerEK,Quigley-McBrideA,FosterJL et al.2014. People with easier to pronounce names promote truthiness of claims.PLOS ONE9:e88671
      [Google Scholar]
    94. O'BrienE.2019. Enjoy it again: Repeat experiences are less repetitive than people think.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.116:519–40
      [Google Scholar]
    95. O'ConnorK,CheemaA.2018. Do evaluations rise with experience?.Psychol. Sci29:779–90
      [Google Scholar]
    96. OppenheimerD.2004. Spontaneous discounting of availability in frequency judgment tasks.Psychol. Sci.15:100–5
      [Google Scholar]
    97. PennycookG,CannonTD,RandDG2018. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news but has no effect on entirely implausible statements.J. Exp. Psychol. Gen.147:1865–80
      [Google Scholar]
    98. PennycookG,RandDG.2019a. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality.PNAS116:2521–26
      [Google Scholar]
    99. PennycookG,RandDG.2019b. Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning.Cognition188:39–50Lazy thinking, not motivated reasoning, explains belief in fake news.
      [Google Scholar]
    100. PennycookG,RandDG.2019c. The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news stories increases perceived accuracy of stories without warnings.Manag. Sci In press
      [Google Scholar]
    101. PennycookG,RandDG.2019d. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking.J. Pers In press.https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476
      [Crossref][Google Scholar]
    102. Pew Res. Cent2018.Distinguishing between factual and opinion statements in the news Rep., Pew Res. Cent Washington, DC:https://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news
      [Google Scholar]
    103. PutnamAL,PhelpsRJ.2017. The citation effect: In-text citations moderately increase belief in trivia claims.Acta Psychol179:114–23
      [Google Scholar]
    104. ReberR,SchwarzN.1999. Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth.Conscious. Cogn.8:338–42
      [Google Scholar]
    105. ReberR,SchwarzN,WinkielmanP2004. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?.Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev8:364–82
      [Google Scholar]
    106. RederLM,KusbitGW.1991. Locus of the Moses illusion: imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match?.J. Mem. Lang30:385–406
      [Google Scholar]
    107. RedlmeierDA,BaxterSD.2009. Rainy weather and medical school admission interviews.Can. Med. Assoc. J.181:933
      [Google Scholar]
    108. ReedAE,MikelsJA,SimonKI2008. Older adults prefer less choice than young adults.Psychol. Aging23:671–75
      [Google Scholar]
    109. RienerCR,StefanucciJK,ProffittDR,CloreG2011. An effect of mood on the perception of geographical slant.Cogn. Emot.25:174–82
      [Google Scholar]
    110. RozinP,MarkwithM,RossB1990. The sympathetic magical law of similarity, nominal realism and neglect of negatives in response to negative labels.Psychol. Sci.1:383–84
      [Google Scholar]
    111. RuderM,BlessH.2003. Mood and the reliance on the ease of retrieval heuristic.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.85:20–32
      [Google Scholar]
    112. SchollSG,GreifenederR,BlessH2014. When fluency signals truth: Prior successful reliance on fluency moderates the impact of fluency on truth judgments.J. Behav. Decis. Mak.27:268–80
      [Google Scholar]
    113. SchwartzBL,MetcalfeJ.1992. Cue familiarity but not target retrievability enhances feeling-of-knowing judgments.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn18:1074–83
      [Google Scholar]
    114. SchwarzN.2002. Situated cognition and the wisdom in feelings: Cognitive tuning.The Wisdom in Feeling: Psychological Processes in Emotional Intelligence LF Barrett, P Salovey144–66 New York: Guilford Press
      [Google Scholar]
    115. SchwarzN.2012. Feelings-as-information theory.Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology PM Van Lange, AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins289–308 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
      [Google Scholar]
    116. SerotaKB,LevineTR,BosterFJ2010. The prevalence of lying in America: three studies of self-reported lies.Hum. Commun. Res.36:2–25
      [Google Scholar]
    117. SerweS,FringsC.2006. Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events.J. Behav. Decis. Mak19:321–32
      [Google Scholar]
    118. SnookB,TaylorPJ,BennellC2004. Geographic profiling: the fast, frugal, and accurate way.Appl. Cogn. Psychol.18:105–21
      [Google Scholar]
    119. SongHJ,SchwarzN.2008. Fluency and the detection of misleading questions: Low processing fluency attenuates the Moses illusion.Soc. Cogn.26:791–99
      [Google Scholar]
    120. StormBC,StoneSM,BenjaminAS2017. Using the Internet to access information inflates future use of the Internet to access other information.Memory25:717–23
      [Google Scholar]
    121. SwireB,EckerUKH,LewandowskyS2017. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.43:1948–61
      [Google Scholar]
    122. TenenbaumJB,GriffithTL,KempC2006. Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning.Trends Cogn. Sci.10:309–18
      [Google Scholar]
    123. UnkelbachC.2007. Reversing the truth effect: learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth.J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn.33:219–30People can reverse the fluency heuristic with feedback.
      [Google Scholar]
    124. UnkelbachC,BayerM,AlvesH,KochA,StahlC2011. Fluency and positivity as possible causes of the truth effect.Conscious. Cogn.20:594–602
      [Google Scholar]
    125. UnkelbachC,GreifenederR.2018. Experiential fluency and declarative advice jointly inform judgments of truth.J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.79:78–86
      [Google Scholar]
    126. UnkelbachC,KochA,SilvaRA,Garcia-MarquesT2019. Truth by repetition: explanations and implications.Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.28:247–53
      [Google Scholar]
    127. UnkelbachC,RomSC.2017. A referential theory of the repetition-induced truth effect.Cognition160:110–26
      [Google Scholar]
    128. UnkelbachC,StahlC.2009. A multinomial modeling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect.Conscious. Cogn.18:22–38
      [Google Scholar]
    129. UseemJ.2017. Power causes brain damage.The Atlantic, July/Aug.https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711
    130. van OostendorpH,de MulS1990. Moses beats Adam: a semantic relatedness effect on a semantic illusion.Acta Psychol74:35–46
      [Google Scholar]
    131. VosoughiS,RoyD,AralS2018. The spread of true and false news online.Science359:1146–51Falsehoods diffuse faster than the truth on Twitter.
      [Google Scholar]
    132. WadeKA,GarryM,ReadJD,LindsayDS2002. A picture is worth a thousand lies: using false photographs to create false childhood memories.Psychon. Bull. Rev.9:597–603
      [Google Scholar]
    133. WangW,BrashierNM,WingEA,MarshEJ,CabezaR2016. On known unknowns: fluency and the neural mechanisms of the illusory truth effect.J. Cogn. Neurosci.28:739–46
      [Google Scholar]
    134. WinkielmanP,CacioppoJT.2001. Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect.J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.81:989–1000
      [Google Scholar]
    135. WixtedJT.2004. On common ground: Jost's (1897) law of forgetting and Ribot's (1881) law of retrograde amnesia.Psych. Rev.111:864–79
      [Google Scholar]
    136. YangX,LiY,LyuS2018. Exposing deep fakes using inconsistent head poses. arXiv:1811.00661 [cs.CV]

    Read the latest from
    Knowable Magazine

    knowable magazine from Annual Reviews

    Climate Resource Center, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Political Science Perspectives on Climate Change, Article Collection from Annual Reviews


    Journal News

    This is a required field
    Please enter a valid email address
    Approval was a Success
    Invalid data
    An Error Occurred
    Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
    Annual Reviews:
    http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807
    SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM
    [8]ページ先頭
    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp