Surely you have heard about a lie, if repeated many times will gradually make others believe that it is true? It is one of the manifestations of illusory real effects, and the following article will provide some basic information about this effect as well as its cause. The following article is translated from the original The Truth Effect and Other Processing Fluency Miracles
Why do so many people believe that people use only 10% of the brain's ability, or that the Eskimo have n words to indicate "snow", with n being the arbitrary number to achieve persuasive purposes? directions? More seriously, is why some, especially the Fox News audience, insisted that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? Why do car salespeople at your dealership come across on the way to work every morning – people waving you look very trustworthy, even if you know never – never be allowed to trust sellers secondhand car in any circumstances? The answer to these questions, or all the questions you will ask, is due to the information processing of reflective neurons (A type of mechanism in the brain that helps us to have copper sympathy). Of course, this flow of processing fluency is not the answer to every question, but at the very least, it is part of the cause.
Most likely you are thinking, god, what is the final processing of fluency, and why does it have so much impact in life? I will let you know, but first let's get used to the true effect first. The true effect, or more precisely, the illusory truth effect (though they sound like nothing to do with each other) was first recorded by Hasher, Goldstein, and Toppino in 1977. They gave Participants experimented with a list of seemingly reliable statements three times, two weeks apart, and asked participants if they were confident that the statements were true or false. Some of the statements are true, some are wrong, but the students participating in this experiment do not seem to know about these things. For example, a participant can read somewhere that "Kentucky is the first state in the West Alleghenies established by the explorers", and "French Horn is given cash bonus while staying in the military" ", These are the correct statements (or at least the second true), and" Zachary is the first president to die in the office ", this is a false statement.
The core lies in repetition. Each participant watched 60 speeches in each turn, and each time there were 40 new sentences (those that did not appear in the previous view). There are 20 repetitive sentences in all 3 views. This is the result of the wrong sentences over 3 views (the confidence rate on a scale of 1-7, with 7 being the highest).
As you can see, the participant's confidence in the correctness of repeated statements gradually increased over three experiments, but almost remained the same for statements that only appeared once. This is the true effect: repeating a statement will make it sound more right.
For several decades, the only explanation for this phenomenon is familiarity. Schwartz (conducted a similar experiment with Hasher's experiment, but instead of asking participants about the correctness of the speech, he asked them to assess the level of familiarity before experimenting. He discovered that the Repeated increases in familiarity before the experiment, he concluded that with strange speeches, people will assess their correctness based on their memory to see if they are trustworthy or not. Therefore, the more familiar the speaker is (repeated many times) the more likely it is.
But familiarity is a rather abstract concept of theory. The question is, how does familiarity affect human awareness? You must have guessed the answer: it is the fluency of processing information. In a small experiment, Reber and Schwartz manipulated participants to see how strange the easy-to-read speech was. Some come with brightly colored fonts, make them more difficult to read, others are printed with darker fonts, making them easier to read. Having statements that are brightly printed is true. Participants only guess which one is right, because they do not know which one is right and what is wrong. And the dark font makes the speech seem more correct. In a recent study, Christian Unkelbach used Signal Detection Theory to argue that this phenomenon was "differentiated". That is when a foreign language is speaking, processing fluency makes it difficult to distinguish between right speech and false speech.
The story of this true effect will make it clearer than the so-called processing fluency: it simply shows the ease of processing input information. The easier it is to process the information, the more smoothly it will go. And these ratings are everywhere (you may not realize you're doing that). For example, identifying the label of a brand by creating a picture related to the object on the label makes the brand seem more popular, as well as introducing brand information in easy-to-read fonts. Processing fluency also has an impact on whether an opinion seems popular or not. Listening to an opinion that makes that idea seem more common, even if you only hear it from a single person. Some theorists also argue that the processing of fluency is the foundation for our aesthetic experience.
Processing information can affect whether a face is trustworthy or not. Brown showed the volunteers two faces, two to two weeks apart. A few faces appeared in both times, and a few new faces were in the second, and he asked them to assess how honest and sincere they looked. Regardless of whether the distance between the two experiments is long or short, the repeated faces seem a bit more sincere and trustworthy. So, if you hear a false statement from a familiar person over and over again, you will be in big trouble. Thanks to the processing fluency, that person will seem more honest and the spokesman also seems more correct and popular.
It seems that these things are a bit exaggerated. And the truth is they are hyperbole. Processing fluency is only a part. The true effect, as described in research labs, is a small part and it only works with statements we are not sure of. When we know something about speeches, we will use other mechanisms to determine their reliability and truth. So people believe Saddam has something to do with 9/11 because it suits the world through their perspective, and they believe it because they've heard it over and over again. But processing fluency will always affect how we perceive the world around us, and I am also convinced by the view that processing fluency takes place anytime, anywhere, and affects almost every information that we will continue to receive. I just wasn't sure if the processing fluency helped the secondhand car seller waved at me every day to convince me to buy the car I didn't want because he looked trustworthy, and because he repeated that a Ford The 1999 Taurus with each mileage was a bargain compared to the price he offered.