Revisiting the effect of discrepant perceptual fluency on truth judgments

Abstract

Fluency theories assume that perceived truth is influenced by the subjective ease with which presented information is processed. Several studies have demonstrated that increased perceptual fluency, induced by high versus low color contrast of presented statements, results in higher truth judgments. According to the discrepancy-attribution hypothesis, the unexpected switch from several low-fluency stimuli to a high-fluency stimulus is assumed to enhance perceived truthfulness. In two online studies (one preregistered), we aimed to conceptually replicate the central finding by Hansen, Dechêne, and Wänke (2008; Journal of Experimental Social Psychology) that discrepancies in color contrast influence truth judgments. Besides adding a color calibration phase in one condition, we extended the original design by varying the length of stimulus blocks presented in low or high color contrast. Contrary to previous findings, neither the level of perceptual fluency nor unexpected discrepancies in fluency affected truth judgments. Still, high-contrast statements were read faster than low-contrast ones, indicating that processing fluency was successfully manipulated. A meta-analysis combining our two experiments with published studies shows that the effect of color contrast on truth judgments may not be as robust as previously thought.