“People think that statements they have heard twice are more true than those the

Question

“People think that statements they have heard twice are more true than those they have encountered only once. That is, simply repeating false information makes it seem more true.

This effect happens to us all – including people who know the truth. Our research suggests that even people who knew Pope Francis made no presidential endorsement would be susceptible to believing a ‘Pope endorses Trump’ headline when they had seen it multiple times.

In a typical study, participants read a series of true statements (‘French horn players get cash bonuses to stay in the U.S. Army’) and false ones (‘Zachary Taylor was the first president to die in office’) and rate how interesting they find each sentence. Then, they are presented with a number of statements and asked to rate how true each one is. This second round includes both the statements from the first round and entirely new statements, both true and false. The outcome: Participants reliably rate the repeated statements as being more true than the new statements.”

1.) What were the independent and dependent variables in the experiment described above?

2.) Did the researchers use an independent-groups or within-groups design in this study? If independent-groups, was it a pre-test/post-test design or post-test-only design? If within-groups, was it a concurrent-measures design or repeated-measures design?

3.) Is a causal claim justified in this case? Apply the three causal criteria to analyze the causal claim that “hearing a false statement more than once causes you to think it is more true.” Make sure to name and consider each of the three causal criteria in your answer and state whether a causal claim is justified.

Explanation / Answer

Question 1: Independent and Dependent variable in the experiment

Independent Variable:

Dependent Variable: Ratings given by the participants on each statement in both the rounds

Question 2: Type of Research study: It’s a within group study. And Concurrent measure design in within group study; because in the present study participants are exposed to all the levels of the independent variable at the same time.

Question 3: About justifying casual claim:

Yes, in the present experiment casual claim is justified. This can be uphold because the result shows that participants rated the statement as true when the statements repeats for more number of times in second round, especially for the statements which they familiar with the first round. This result supports the casual claim that “hearing a false statement more than once causes you to think it is more true.”

This condition is known as ‘Illusory truth effect’. It is the tendency to believe information to be correct after repeated exposure. This phenomenon was first identified in a 1977 study at Villanova University and Temple University. When truth is assessed, people rely on whether the information is in line with their understanding or if it feels familiar. The first condition is logical as people compare new information with what they already know to be true. Repetition makes statements easier to process, in relating to new or unrepeated statements, leading people believe that the repeated conclusion is more truthful.

Apart from the above explanation, even the case mentioned about presidential elections in USA, is a recently happened incident which supports for the casual claim mentioned.

The case of Marcus Antonius, written by Shakespeare in his book Julius Caesar also supports casual claim mentioned in the experiment.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse #
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.