Repetition can also impact moral judgements when it comes to condemning fake-news headlines. According to a study by Effron and Raj (containing 4 experiments), encountering a fake-news headline multiple times can make it seem less unethical to share, even when the subject knows the headlines is false. 

An Extension of the Effect of Repetition: Misinformation and Moral Judgements

According to Pillai, Brown-Schmidt, and Fazio, repeating false information in order to fact check it does not actually cause increased belief in the misinformation that is being debunked, as long as it is explicitly stated as false.

Contrasting findings to Repetition in Fact checking

A person is more likely to believe an information is true, if it's been seen multiple times (Bacon, 1979; Begg et al., 1992; Hasher, Goldstein, & Top¬pino, 1977; for a review see Dechêne et al., 2010).

Kalamazoo College

University of Delaware

The effect in which a non-probative photo has an impact on people's beliefs about the truth of an associated claim, despite the fact that the photo provides no diagnostic evidence for the claim's truthfulness.

The Truthiness Effect

Repeated exposure increases one’s likelihood to believe a statement (Dechene et al., 2010) because the increased familiarity leads to easier processing (Shen et al., 2019).   Pan, Liu and Fang (2021) hypothesized that “individuals’ repeated exposure to health misinformation is positively associated with their health misinformation acceptance.“



Hypothesis about repeated exposure & health misinformation by Pan, Liu & Fang (2021)

- Don’t repeat wrong information because of the repition-based truth-effect.
- Institutions should work to increase people’s trust in them to reduce health-related anxiety.
- Active inoculating and prebunking.
- Repeated warnings.
- Improve people’s health literacy.


Pan, Liu and Fang's (2021) recommendations on how to fight the spread of health misinformation

Newman, E. J., & Zhang, L. (2020). Truthiness: How non-probative photos shape belief. In R. Greifeneder, M. Jaffé, E. J. Newman, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp. 90–114). London: Routledge. 

Truthiness: How non-probative photos shape belief

Participants were shown claims of different celebrities with the caption “this celebrity is alive”. Some of these claims were coupled with a non-probative photograph of the celebrity in their profession--namely, stock photos of them. The participants were then asked whether or not they believed this claim. Participants were more likely to agree with the claim that the celebrity was alive when that claim had been accompanied by a non-probative photograph of that celebrity. Interestingly, the same results were found when the claim was that the celebrity was dead. If the claim was coupled with a non-probative photo of that celebrity, participants were more likely to agree with the claim that the celebrity was dead. 


Evidence for the Truthiness Effect: Newman's Celebrity Experiment

Newman, Azad, Lindsay, and Garry (2018) made claims about various commodities (i.e. "Benzene") and asked participants to evaluate whether these claims were true or false.

Evidence for the Truthiness Effect: The Commodity Experiment

How do political beliefs affect one’s likelihood to experience the truthiness effect regarding a claim which is inconsistent with one's political beliefs?

future research about the truthiness effect

Due to the high influence of non-probative photos on whether individuals believe a certain claim to be true, an important investigation that needs to be raised is whether truthiness can be reduced at all. Factors to consider are: 

- The types of conditions that influence people's likelihood to become affected by truthiness.
-  Any individual differences related to becoming impacted by the truthiness effect.
- If informing people about the use of non-probative photos play any sort of role in susceptibility to the truthiness effect.



Reducing Truthiness

Cardwell, Newman, Garry, Mantonakis, & Beckett (2017) conducted a product evaluation task in participants were given the opportunity to taste wines that either did or did not contain a non-probative photo on the wine label. The effect of positive claims regarding the wines (i.e. "This wine was rated high quality") was examined.

Evidence for the Truthiness Effect: The Product Evaluation Task Experiment

The truthiness effect doesn't occur when people make judgements about claims about themselves (Abed, Fenn & Pezdek, 2017).

limitations of the truthiness effect

Cardwell, Henkel, Garry, Newman, & Foster (2016) presented a non-probative photo to participants alongside claims regarding actions that participants had performed in a simulated zoo game.

Evidence for the Truthiness Effect: The Memory for Actions Task Experiment

Research has found that news headlines accompanied by photos are more likely to be deemed true information in comparison with headlines that do not contain any photos. Additionally, a study by Fenn et al. (2019) found that people are more likely to share this type of information on social media networks, which can further generate the spread of fake news and misinformation.

Truthiness and Fake News

How does the content of non-probative photos affect the truthiness effect? Do dramatic and violent photos increase or decrease the truthiness effect?

Thruthiness effect & the content of non-porbative photos?

Repetition-based truth-effect

The hypotheses were supported. Health-related anxiety, preexisting beliefs and repeated exposure were significantly, positively related to people's health misinformation acceptance. Furthermore, they found that meaningful associations between demographic data and health misinformation acceptance. Women were more likely to believe health misinformation than men. Age correlated significantly, negatively with health misinformation acceptance. Income and educational level (as indicators of socio-economic status) were significantly, negatively correlated with health misinformation acceptance.

Findings of a study by Pan, Liu & Fang (2021) about health misinformation acceptance

Inoculating someone (in the context of fake news) is an attempt to reduce an individual's susceptibility to accepting fake news by presenting them with misinformation and giving them the tools to recognize it as such. The theory comes directly from an immunological analogy about virus protection; in the psychological sense, inoculation is giving someone a "weakened" version of misleading info, which leads "mental antibodies" formed, making them "immune" to persuasion.

See "How Disinformation is Disseminated"

Learn Before

Related

Learn After