The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect

Personality and Social Psychology Review

Volumn 14, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 238-257

  Dechêne, Alice ^a   Stahl, Christoph ^b   Hansen, Jochim ^a   Wänke, Michaela ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BASEL   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Meta analysis; Processing fluency; Truth effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951634606     PISSN: 10888683     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1088868309352251     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.
2. Alter, A.L., & Oppenheimer, D.M. (2009). Using the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219-235.
3. Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1990). Ease of message processing as a moderator of repetition effects in advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 345-353.
4. *Arkes, H.R., Boehm, L.E., & Xu, G. (1991). Determinants of judged validity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 576-605.
5. *Arkes, H.R., Hackett, C., & Boehm, L. (1989). The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2, 81-94.
6. *Bacon, F.T. (1979). Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 241-252.
7. Batra, R., & Ray, M.L. (1986). Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 432-445.
8. *Begg, I., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446-458.
9. *Begg, I., & Armour, V. (1991). Repetition and the ring of truth: Biasing comments. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 23, 195-213.
10. *Begg, I., Armour, V., & Kerr, T. (1985). On believing what we remember. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 17, 199-214.
11. Berlyne, D.E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 279-286.
12. Bornstein, R.F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.
13. Bornstein, R.F., & D'Agostino, P.R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 545-552.
14. Bornstein, R.F., & D'Agostino, P.R. (1994). The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency: Preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect. Social Cognition, 12, 103-128.
15. *Brown, A.S., & Nix, L.A. (1996). Turning lies into truths: Referential validation of falsehoods. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1088-1100.
16. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L.V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.
19. *Dechêne, A. (2005). Hängt die Wahrheit von der Formulierung ab? Einflüsse von syntaktischer Veränderung und Verarbeitungstiefe auf den truth effect [Influence of syntactical changes and level of processing on the truth effect]. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Basel, Switzerland.
20. *Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2009). Mix Me a list: Context moderates the truth effect and the mere exposure effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1117-1122.
21. *Dechêne, A., & Wänke, M. (2006a). [Truth effect and faith in intuition]. Unpublished raw data.
22. *Dechêne, A., & Wänke, M. (2006b). [Truth judgments under processing constraints]. Unpublished raw data.
23. *Doland, C.A. (1999). Repeating is believing: An investigation of the illusory truth effect. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(4-B), pp. 1879. (UMI No. 9927617).
24. Dunlap, W.P., Cortina, J.M., Vaslow, J.B., & Burke, M.J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measure designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170-177.
25. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
26. Garcia-Marques, T., Mackie, D.M., Claypool, H.M., & Garcia-Marques, L. (2004). Positivity can cue familiarity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 585-593.
27. Gardiner, J.M., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2000). Remembering and knowing. In E. Tulving & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 229-244). New York: Oxford University Press.
28. *Gigerenzer, G. (1984). External validity of laboratory experiments: The frequency-validity relationship. American Journal of Psychology, 97, 185-195.
29. Gilbert, D.T., Krull, D.S., & Malone, P.S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-613.
30. Gilbert, D.T., Tafarodi, R.W., & Malone, P.S. (1993). You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
31. Greenwald, A., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 581-591.
32. Hansen, J., Dechêne, A., & Wänke, M. (2008). Discrepant fluency increases subjective truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 687-691.
33. Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2008). It's the difference that counts: Expectancy/experience discrepancy moderates the use of ease of retrieval in attitude judgments. Social Cognition, 26, 447-468.
34. *Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 107-112.
35. *Hawkins, S.A., & Hoch, S.J. (1992). Low-involvement learning: Memory without evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 212-225.
36. *Hawkins, S.A., Hoch, S.J., & Meyers Levy, J. (2001). Low-involvement learning: Repetition and coherence in familiarity and belief. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11, 1-11.
37. Hedges, L.V. (1983). A random effects model for effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 388-395.
38. Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
39. Hedges, L.V., & Vevea, J.D. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
40. Hertwig, R., Herzog, S.M., Schooler, L.J., & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a by-product of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1191-1206.
41. Holden, S.J.S., & Vanhuele, M. (1999). Know the name, forget the exposure: Brand familiarity versus memory of exposure context. Psychology and Marketing, 16, 479-496.
42. Hurtt, R.K. (1999). Sceptical about scepticism: Instrument development and experimental validation. Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
43. Jacoby, L.L., Kelley, C., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous over night: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326-338.
44. Jacoby, L.L., & Whitehouse, K. (1989). An illusion of memory: False recognition influenced by unconscious perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 126-135.
45. *Kim, C. (2002). The role of individual differences in general scepticism in the illusory truth effect. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(05), 1913A. (UMI No. 3053399).
46. Krosnick, J.A. (1991). The stability of political preferences: Comparisons of symbolic and non-symbolic attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 547-576.
47. Krosnick, J.A., & Fabrigar, L.R. (1997). Designing rating scales for effective measurement in surveys. In L. Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. de Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz, & D. Trewin (Eds.), Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 141-164). New York: John Wiley.
48. Law, S. (1999). Investigating the truth effect in young and elderly consumers: The role of recognition and source memory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(1-A), Jul 1999, pp. 0191. UMI No. AAMNQ35219).
49. *Law, S., & Hawkins, S.A. (1997). Advertising repetition and consumer beliefs: The role of source memory. In W. D. Wells (Ed.), Measuring advertising effectiveness: Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 67-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
50. *Law, S., Hawkins, S.A., & Craik, F.I.M. (1998). Repetition-induced belief in the elderly: Rehabilitating age-related memory deficits. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 91-107.
51. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. *Mitchell, J.P., Dodson, C.S., & Schacter, D.L. (2005). fMRI evidence for the role of recollection in suppressing misattribution errors: The illusory truth effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 800-810.
53. *Mitchell, J.P., Sullivan, A.L., Schacter, D.L., & Budson, A.E. (2006). Misattribution errors in Alzheimer's disease: The illusory truth effect. Neuropsychology, 20, 185-192.
54. *Mutter, S.A., Lindsey, S.E., & Pliske, R.M. (1995). Aging and credibility judgment. Aging and Cognition, 2, 89-107.
55. Nordhielm, C.L. (2002). The influence of level of processing on advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 371-382.
56. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E.R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159-186.
57. Parks, C.M., & Toth, J.P. (2006). Fluency, familiarity, aging, and the illusion of truth. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13, 225-253.
58. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
59. Raudenbush, S.W. (1994). Random effect models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301-321). New York: Russell Sage.
60. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338-342.
61. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364-382.
62. Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45-48.
63. Roediger, H.L., III. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without thinking. American Psychologist, 45, 1043-1056.
64. Roediger, H.L., III, & McDermott, K.B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 803-814.
65. *Roggeveen, A.L., & Johar, G.V. (2002). Perceived source variability versus familiarity: Testing competing explanations for the truth effect. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 81-91.
66. Roggeveen, A.L., & Johar, G.V. (2007). Changing false beliefs from repeated advertising: The role of claim-refutation alignment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 118-127.
67. Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 400-406.
68. Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I., & Hayes, T.L. (2009). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 13, 97-128.
69. *Schwartz, M. (1982). Repetition and rated truth value of statements. American Journal of Psychology, 95, 393-407.
70. Schumann, D.W., Petty, R.E., & Clemons, D.S. (1990). Predicting the effectiveness of different strategies of advertising variation: A test of the repetition-advertising hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 192-202.
71. Simmons, J.P., & Nelson, L.D. (2006). Intuitive confidence: Choosing between intuitive and nonintuitive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 409-428.
72. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D.C., & Schwarz, N. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 713-724.
73. *Toppino, T.C., & Brochin, H.A. (1989). Learning from tests: The case of true-false examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 119-124.
74. Unkelbach, C. (2006). The learned interpretation of cognitive fluency. Psychological Science, 12, 339-345.
75. Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgements of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
76. Unkelbach, C., Bayer, M., Alves, H., Koch, A., & Stahl, C. (2009). Fluency and Positivity as possible causes of the truth effect. Manuscript submitted for publication.
77. Unkelbach, C., & Stahl, C. (2008). A multinomial modelling approach to dissociate different components of the truth effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 22-38.
78. Westerman, D. (2008). Relative fluency and illusions of recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1196-1200.
79. Whittlesea, B.W.A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1235-1253.
80. Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Leboe, J.P. (2003). Two fluency heuristics (and how to tell them apart). Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 62-79.
81. Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Williams, L.D. (1998). Why do strangers feel familiar, but friends don't? A discrepancy-attribution account of feelings of familiarity. Acta Psychologica, 98, 141-165.
82. Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Williams, L.D. (2000). The source of feelings of familiarity: The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 547-565.
83. Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Williams, L.D. (2001a). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feeling of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 3-13.
84. Whittlesea, B.W.A., & Williams, L.D. (2001b). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: II. Expectation, uncertainty, surprise, and feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 14-33.
85. Willems, S., & Van der Linden, M. (2006). Mere exposure effect: A consequence of direct and indirect fluency-preference links. Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 323-341.
86. Wilson, M.W. (2003). Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: Good, bad, and ugly. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 69-81.
87. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989-1000.
88. Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9, 1-27.