"Questioning" the truth effect: Processing information in interrogative form reduces (but does not cancel) repetition-induced truth.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Simone Mattavelli, Claudia Bianchi, Matteo Motterlini
{"title":"\"Questioning\" the truth effect: Processing information in interrogative form reduces (but does not cancel) repetition-induced truth.","authors":"Simone Mattavelli, Claudia Bianchi, Matteo Motterlini","doi":"10.3758/s13421-025-01742-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People attribute higher truth to information they have previously been exposed to. This \"truth effect\" is resistant to many interventions aimed to reduce it. In three preregistered experiments, we explored whether processing largely unknown information in the form of questions could counteract repetition-induced truth. In Experiment 1 (N = 100), participants judged the truth of repeated and unrepeated sentences. Half of the participants processed sentences in declarative form and the other half processed them in interrogative form during exposure and judgment. A significant interaction between sentence repetition and sentence form emerged, with a significant truth effect in the declarative condition but not in the interrogative. Experiment 2 (N = 325) introduced an additional interrogative condition presenting sentences as questions only during the exposure phase. Compared with the declarative condition, the truth effect was greatly reduced, but still significant, in both interrogative conditions. Experiment 3 (N = 235) employed a within-participant design to manipulate both repetition and sentence form. We confirmed that the truth effect was substantially reduced for interrogative sentences. Additionally, repetition had a smaller effect on certainty about truth judgments for interrogative compared with declarative sentences. We discuss how these findings inform theoretical accounts of the truth effect and their implications for debiasing strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":48398,"journal":{"name":"Memory & Cognition","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01742-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People attribute higher truth to information they have previously been exposed to. This "truth effect" is resistant to many interventions aimed to reduce it. In three preregistered experiments, we explored whether processing largely unknown information in the form of questions could counteract repetition-induced truth. In Experiment 1 (N = 100), participants judged the truth of repeated and unrepeated sentences. Half of the participants processed sentences in declarative form and the other half processed them in interrogative form during exposure and judgment. A significant interaction between sentence repetition and sentence form emerged, with a significant truth effect in the declarative condition but not in the interrogative. Experiment 2 (N = 325) introduced an additional interrogative condition presenting sentences as questions only during the exposure phase. Compared with the declarative condition, the truth effect was greatly reduced, but still significant, in both interrogative conditions. Experiment 3 (N = 235) employed a within-participant design to manipulate both repetition and sentence form. We confirmed that the truth effect was substantially reduced for interrogative sentences. Additionally, repetition had a smaller effect on certainty about truth judgments for interrogative compared with declarative sentences. We discuss how these findings inform theoretical accounts of the truth effect and their implications for debiasing strategies.

“质疑”真相效应:以疑问形式处理信息减少(但不消除)重复诱发的真相。
人们把更高的真实性归因于他们以前接触过的信息。这种“真相效应”抵制了许多旨在减少它的干预措施。在三个预先注册的实验中,我们探讨了以问题的形式处理大量未知信息是否可以抵消重复诱发的真相。在实验1 (N = 100)中,参与者判断重复和未重复句子的真实性。在暴露和判断过程中,一半的参与者以陈述句的形式处理句子,另一半以疑问句的形式处理句子。句子重复和句子形式之间存在显著的交互作用,在陈述句条件下存在显著的真值效应,而在疑问句条件下不存在。实验2 (N = 325)引入了一个额外的疑问句条件,只在暴露阶段将句子作为疑问句呈现。与陈述性条件相比,两种疑问句的真实效应都大大降低,但仍然显著。实验3 (N = 235)采用参与者内部设计来操纵重复和句子形式。我们证实,疑问句的真值效应大大降低。此外,与陈述句相比,重复对疑问句真性判断的确定性影响较小。我们将讨论这些发现如何为真相效应的理论解释及其对消除偏见策略的影响提供信息。
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
Memory & Cognition
Memory & Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Memory & Cognition covers human memory and learning, conceptual processes, psycholinguistics, problem solving, thinking, decision making, and skilled performance, including relevant work in the areas of computer simulation, information processing, mathematical psychology, developmental psychology, and experimental social psychology.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信