Fluency trumps working memory capacity in the truth effect

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Chan Wai Mak, Weng-Tink Chooi
{"title":"Fluency trumps working memory capacity in the truth effect","authors":"Chan Wai Mak, Weng-Tink Chooi","doi":"10.1080/20445911.2023.2260048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTThe truth effect, wherein repeated information gains perceived truthfulness, has been extensively studied in participants’ primary languages, showing robustness. However, individual differences in the truth effect due to working memory capacity (WMC) remain less explored. This study tested the truth effect and its relation to WMC amongst 130 young adults in Malaysia via Zoom. They were first exposed to 45 semantically meaningless statements (exposure phase). Then, participants completed a series of working memory tasks, including Backward Digit Span, Operation Span and Symmetry Span, before being exposed to the same 45 statements and 15 new statements. In the second exposure (rating phase), participants rated each statement on a 6-point Likert scale on its fluency and truth value. Results indicated fluency's significant association with the truth effect, consistent with prior research, while WMC showed no significant relationship. The truth effect persisted even when presented in a non-native language, highlighting its cross-linguistic significance.KEYWORDS: perceived truthworking memoryprocessing fluencynon-WEIRDcognitive bias Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Publication ethicsInformed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. All procedures in the study were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of Human Research Ethics Committee USM (HREC). Study protocol number [20060303].AuthorshipChan Wai Mak, writing—original draft, data curation, formal analysis; Weng-Tink Chooi, methodology, supervision, writing—review & editing.All authors approved the final version of the article.Open dataThe data that support the findings of this study are openly available at Open Science Framework http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WU4JQ.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia Short-Term Grant (304/PSOSIAL/6315579) to WENG-TINK CHOOI.","PeriodicalId":47483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2260048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe truth effect, wherein repeated information gains perceived truthfulness, has been extensively studied in participants’ primary languages, showing robustness. However, individual differences in the truth effect due to working memory capacity (WMC) remain less explored. This study tested the truth effect and its relation to WMC amongst 130 young adults in Malaysia via Zoom. They were first exposed to 45 semantically meaningless statements (exposure phase). Then, participants completed a series of working memory tasks, including Backward Digit Span, Operation Span and Symmetry Span, before being exposed to the same 45 statements and 15 new statements. In the second exposure (rating phase), participants rated each statement on a 6-point Likert scale on its fluency and truth value. Results indicated fluency's significant association with the truth effect, consistent with prior research, while WMC showed no significant relationship. The truth effect persisted even when presented in a non-native language, highlighting its cross-linguistic significance.KEYWORDS: perceived truthworking memoryprocessing fluencynon-WEIRDcognitive bias Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Publication ethicsInformed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. All procedures in the study were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of Human Research Ethics Committee USM (HREC). Study protocol number [20060303].AuthorshipChan Wai Mak, writing—original draft, data curation, formal analysis; Weng-Tink Chooi, methodology, supervision, writing—review & editing.All authors approved the final version of the article.Open dataThe data that support the findings of this study are openly available at Open Science Framework http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WU4JQ.Additional informationFundingThis research was supported by Universiti Sains Malaysia Short-Term Grant (304/PSOSIAL/6315579) to WENG-TINK CHOOI.
在真相效应中,流利度胜过工作记忆容量
摘要真实效应,即重复信息获得感知的真实性,在被试的母语中得到了广泛的研究,显示出鲁棒性。然而,由于工作记忆容量(WMC)导致的真相效应的个体差异仍然很少被探索。本研究通过Zoom测试了马来西亚130名年轻人的真实效应及其与WMC的关系。他们首先被暴露在45个语义无意义的语句中(暴露阶段)。然后,参与者完成了一系列工作记忆任务,包括倒向数字广度、运算广度和对称广度,然后再看同样的45个语句和15个新语句。在第二次曝光(评分阶段),参与者用6分的李克特量表对每个陈述的流利度和真实值进行评分。结果表明,流利度与真实效应显著相关,与前人的研究结果一致,而WMC没有显著相关。即使在非母语中呈现,真相效应仍然存在,突出了它的跨语言意义。关键词:感知真相工作记忆加工流畅性非怪异认知偏差披露声明作者未报告潜在利益冲突出版伦理所有参与研究的参与者均获得了知情同意。本研究的所有程序均按照人类研究伦理委员会USM (HREC)的伦理标准进行。研究方案号[20060303]。作者陈伟麦,写作-原稿,数据整理,形式分析;崔翁婷,研究方法、指导、写作、评审、编辑。所有作者都认可了文章的最终版本。开放数据支持本研究结果的数据可在开放科学框架http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WU4JQ.Additional上公开获取。本研究由马来西亚理科大学短期资助(304/ psocial /6315579)资助给WENG-TINK choi。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cognitive Psychology
Journal of Cognitive Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
15.40%
发文量
54
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信