Perceived Source Variability Versus Familiarity: Testing Competing Explanations for the Truth Effect

This article tests 2 competing explanations for the truth effect, the finding that repeated statements are believed more than new statements. Previous research has put forth 2 explanations for this effect—subjective familiarity and perceived source variability. The subjective familiarity explanation holds that repeated statements feel more familiar and are therefore believed more than new statements. This explanation has received strong support in the literature. The source variability explanation holds that people attribute repeated statements to different sources; this belief, that multiple sources endorse the statement, increases belief in repeated statements relative to new statements attributed to a single source. However, previous studies testing this explanation have confounded source variability with source credibility. This research aims to tease apart the effects of subjective familiarity and source variability while holding source credibility constant across conditions. Results of the first 2 experiments manipulating number of sources and measuring recognition implicate subjective familiarity rather than perceived source variability as the mechanism underlying the truth effect. However, the third study demonstrates that source variability does enhance belief in repeated statements that are initially perceived as low in plausibility. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. You are flipping through a magazine and see an ad for Take Control, a spread made from natural soybean extract. The ad says “Take Control tastes great and helps promote healthy cholesterol levels!” Do you believe it? What if you then see a picture of Regis Philbin with his testimonial “Sounds too good to be true? Wait ’til you try it. It’s delicious and helps me look after my cholesterol!” —will his testimonial increase your belief? Without product experience, you may be forced to depend on cues (such as how familiar the claim feels or how many

[1]  Thomas C. Toppino,et al.  Frequency and the Conference of Referential Validity. , 1977 .

[2]  M. Schwartz Repetition and rated truth value of statements. , 1982 .

[3]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[4]  Sharmistha Law,et al.  Repetition-Induced Belief in the Elderly: Rehabilitating Age-Related Memory Deficits , 1998 .

[5]  L. Boehm,et al.  The Validity Effect: A Search for Mediating Variables , 1994 .

[6]  Jack M. Feldman,et al.  Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. , 1988 .

[7]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Frederick T. Bacon Credibility of Repeated Statements: Memory for Trivia. , 1979 .

[9]  H. Arkes,et al.  Determinants of judged validity. , 1991 .

[10]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  External validity of laboratory experiments: The frequency-validity relationship , 1984 .

[11]  G. Mandler Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. , 1980 .

[12]  Stephen J. Hoch,et al.  Low-Involvement Learning: Memory without Evaluation , 1992 .

[13]  Ian Begg,et al.  Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth , 1992 .

[14]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. , 1980, Science.

[15]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Low-Involvement Learning: Repetition and Coherence in Familiarity and Belief , 2001 .

[16]  Catherine Hackett,et al.  The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity. , 1989 .