After online publication, subscribers (personal/institutional) to this journal will have
access to the complete article via the DOI using the URL:
If you would like to know when your article has been published online, take advantage
of our free alert service. For registration and further information, go to:
Due to the electronic nature of the procedure, the manuscript and the original figures
will only be returned to you on special request. When you return your corrections,
please inform us, if you would like to have these documents returned.
Here are the proofs of your article.
You can submit your corrections online, via e-mail or by fax.
For online submission please insert your corrections in the online correction form.
Always indicate the line number to which the correction refers.
You can also insert your corrections in the proof PDF and email the annotated PDF.
For fax submission, please ensure that your corrections are clearly legible. Use a fine
black pen and write the correction in the margin, not too close to the edge of the page.
Remember to note the journal title, article number, and your name when sending your
response via e-mail or fax.
Check the metadata sheet to make sure that the header information, especially author
names and the corresponding affiliations are correctly shown.
Check the questions that may have arisen during copy editing and insert your
Check that the text is complete and that all figures, tables and their legends are included.
Also check the accuracy of special characters, equations, and electronic supplementary
material if applicable. If necessary refer to the Edited manuscript.
The publication of inaccurate data such as dosages and units can have serious
consequences. Please take particular care that all such details are correct.
Please do not make changes that involve only matters of style. We have generally
introduced forms that follow the journal’s style.
Substantial changes in content, e.g., new results, corrected values, title and authorship are
not allowed without the approval of the responsible editor. In such a case, please contact
the Editorial Office and return his/her consent together with the proof.
If we do not receive your corrections within 48 hours, we will send you a reminder.
Your article will be published Online First approximately one week after receipt of your
corrected proofs. This is the official first publication citable with the DOI. Further
changes are, therefore, not possible.
The printed version will follow in a forthcoming issue.
Metadata of the article that will be visualized in OnlineFirst
1 Article Title Nonprobative photographs (or w ords) inflate truthiness
2 Article Sub- T i tl e
3 Article Copyright -
Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2012
(This w ill be the copyright line in the final PDF)
4 Journal Name Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Family Nam e Garry
6 Particl e
7 Given Nam e Maryanne
8 Suffi x
9 Organi zation Victoria Uni versity of Wellington
10 Division School of Psychol ogy
11 Address P.O. Box 600, Wellington 6147, New Zeal and
12 e-mail Ma ryanne.Garry@vuw.ac.nz
Family Nam e New ma n
15 Gi ven Name Eryn J.
17 Organizati on Victoria University of Wel l i ngton
18 Division School of Psychol ogy
19 Address P.O. Box 600, Wellington 6147, New Zeal and
Family Nam e Bernstein
23 Gi ven Name Daniel M.
25 Organizati on Kwantlen Polytechnic Uni versity
27 Address British Columbia, Canada
Family Nam e Kantner
31 Gi ven Name Justin
Please note: Images will appear in color online but will be printed in black and white.
33 Organizati on University of Vi ctoria
35 Address British Columbia, Canada
Family Nam e Lindsay
39 Gi ven Name D. Stephen
41 Organizati on University of Vi ctoria
43 Address British Columbia, Canada
46 Revi sed
48 Abstract When pe opl e eval uate cl aims, they often rel y o n what comedian
Stephen Colbert cal l s “truthi ness,” or subj ective feel i ngs of truth. In
four experiments, we exam i ned the impact of nonprobative
informati on on truthi ness. In Experim ents 1A and 1B, people saw
fam i l i ar and unfam i l i ar cel ebrity n ames and, for each, qui ckly
respon ded “true” or “fal se” to the (between-subjects) claim “Thi s
fam ous person i s alive” or “This famous person i s dead.” Within
subj ects, some of the nam es appeared wi th a photo of the cel ebrity
engaged in hi s or her profession, whe reas other names appeared
al one. For unfami l i ar cel ebrity name s, photos increased the
likelihood that the subjects would j udge the clai m to be true.
Moreover, the same photos infl ated the subjective truth of both the
“alive” and “dead” clai m s, suggesting that photos did not produce
an “al i ve bi as” but rather a “truth bi as.” Experiment 2 showed th at
photo s and verbal informati on si m i l arly infl ated truthiness,
sugg esting that the effect is not pecul i ar to photograph s per se.
Experime nt 3 demonstrated that nonprobative photos can also
enhance the truthi ness of general knowledge clai m s (e.g., Gi raffes
are the onl y mammals that cannot jump). T hese effects add to a
growing l i terature on how nonprobative informati on can inflate
subj ecti ve feeli ngs of truth .
sepa rated by ' - '
Memory - Rel ati ve judgme nt - Cogni tive fluency
50 Foot note
The onl i ne versi on of this arti cl e (doi:10.3 758/s13423-012-0292-0)
contai ns supplementary material , which is available to authorized
Electronic supplementary material
4Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness
6Eryn J. Newman &Maryanne Garry &
7Daniel M. Bernstein &Justin Kantner &
8D. Stephen Lindsay
12 #Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2012
14 Abstract When people evaluate claims, they often rely on
15 what comedian Stephen Colbert calls “truthiness,”or
16 subjective feelings of truth. In four experiments, we
17 examined the impact of nonprobative information on
18 truthiness. In Experiments 1A and 1B, people saw fa-
19 miliar and unfamiliar celebrity names and, for each,
20 quickly responded “true”or “false”to the (between-
21 subjects) claim “This famous person is alive”or “This
22 famous person is dead.”Within subjects, some of the
23 names appeared with a photo of the celebrity engaged
24 in his or her profession, whereas other names appeared
25 alone. For unfamiliar celebrity names, photos increased
26 the likelihood that the subjects would judge the claim to
27 be true. Moreover, the same photos inflated the subjec-
28 tive truth of both the “alive”and “dead”claims, sug-
29 gesting that photos did not produce an “alive bias”but
30 rather a “truth bias.”Experiment 2showed that photos
31 and verbal information similarly inflated truthiness, sug-
32 gesting that the effect is not peculiar to photographs per
33 se. Experiment 3demonstrated that nonprobative photos
34 can also enhance the truthiness of general knowledge
35 claims (e.g., Giraffes are the only mammals that cannot
36 jump). These effects add to a growing literature on how
37 nonprobative information can inflate subjective feelings
38 of truth.
39Keywords Memory .Relative judgment .Cognitive fluency Q2
40“I am no fan of dictionaries or reference books,”says
41comedian Stephen Colbert, “constantly telling us what is
42or isn’ttrue.”Instead of looking up claims in a book,
43Colbert urges viewers to “try looking it up in your gut.”
44This is truthiness:“truth that comes from the gut, not
45books.”Of course, when people evaluate claims, they use
46both rational thinking and intuitive hunches—often doing
47so, as Colbert implied, without having access to the facts. A
48century of research has shown that these intuitive judgments
49are susceptible to influence from general beliefs, prejudices,
50and expectations; from features of the current context, such
51as demand characteristics; and from aspects of past experi-
52ence that interact with the present to privilege the accessi-
53bility of some memories over others (Bransford & Johnson,
541972;Henkel&Mather,2007; Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc,
551980; Lindsay, 2008). In this article, we will use the term
56“truthiness effect”to refer to a category of phenomena in
57which—when making rapid judgments about the truth of a
58claim—nonprobative information about a stimulus or situa-
59tion causes people to shift toward believing that claim.
60Suppose, for instance, that you evaluate the claim “Stephen
61King is alive.”You are probably familiar with Stephen King.
62The cognitive literature suggests that you will try to retrieve
63information from memory—related knowledge, thoughts, and
64images—to help you decide whether or not he is alive
65(Graesser & Hemphill, 1991). We know from research on
66confirmation bias that people search for information that sup-
67ports their hypotheses, perhaps because (as per Spinoza’s
68notion) comprehending a claim entails representing it as true,
69whereas falsifying it requires a secondary, more effortful step
70(Gilbert, Tafarodi, & Malone, 1993; Nickerson, 1998). So,
71given the claim “Stephen King is alive,”you might mentally
72test the hypothesis that he is indeed alive: You “see”recent
73images of him, “hear”him on NPR, or “remember”seeing
74advertisements for his latest book. The fluency with which
75you generate these alive-consistent thoughts and images may
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0292-0) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
E. J. Newman :M. Garry (*)
School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington,
P.O. Box 600 Wellington, New Zealand 6147
D. M. Bernstein
Kwantlen Polytechnic University,
British Columbia, Canada
J. Kantner :D. S. Lindsay
University of Victoria,
British Columbia, Canada
Psychon Bull Rev
JrnlID 13423_ArtID 292_Proof# 1 - 28/06/2012
76 bolster their perceived currency. And so you conclude that the
77 claim is true.
78 But now suppose that you evaluate the claim “John Key
79 is alive.”We suspect that most readers know little to nothing
80 about John Key. You might think “John Key? Not sure if
81 I’ve heard of him. I have no idea whether he’s alive.”You
82 might be unable to conjure thoughts and images to help you
83 evaluate whether the claim is true, and your only recourse
84 would be to guess. But nonprobative information can affect
85 people’s guesses in the moment. Indeed, several lines of
86 research lead us to speculate that when a claim appears with
87 a photograph, such as the one of John Key in Fig. 1below,
88 the photo might bias people to guess that the claim is true.
89 We know from studies of cognitive fluency that pre-
90 senting information in a semantically rich context can
91 facilitate conceptual processing and lead to illusions of
92 familiarity in the moment. For example, people more
93 often claim that they have studied a target word (e.g.,
94 “boat”) earlier when the test word appears in a seman-
95 tically predictive sentence (“Thestormyseastossedthe
96 boat”) rather than in a neutral sentence (“He saved up
97 his money and bought a boat”; Whittlesea, 1993). The
98 semantically predictive context is thought to help people
99 anticipate the final word, producing unexpectedly fluent
100 conceptual processing, which they take as evidence of
101familiarity—leading them to say that they have recently
102seen the word. This finding also fits with the literature
103on cognitive availability: Repeated or semantically
104primed information is easily retrieved from memory,
105and people often conclude—sometimes falsely—that
106easy retrieval signals frequency, familiarity, and truth
107(Begg, Anas, & Farinacci, 1992; Kelley & Lindsay,
1081993; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973; Whittlesea, 2011).
109This literature suggests that in a single presentation,
110photos might provide a semantically rich context, mak-
111ing details about an otherwise unfamiliar name more
112available. Thus, photos should bootstrap the generation
113of thoughts and images that subjects may then be biased
114to construe as evidence that the claim in question is
115true. To understand our thinking, reconsider the claim
116about John Key, but this time look at the photo in
117Fig. 1. Suddenly you know a little more about him.
118You might think “He’s probably some kind of political
119figure—I see a flag, and microphones with media logos.
120The flag has part of the Union Jack—looks like it’s
121from Australia or maybe New Zealand. . . .”The photo
122is related to the claim and is nonprobative—it does not
123tell you whether John Key is alive—but the information
124you glean from that photo might nonetheless enable you
125to do a better job of imagining that the claim is true.
Fig. 1 Bias for claims about familiarand unfamiliar names (in Exps. 1A,
1B,and2) or for easy and difficult trivia statements (in Exp. 3), presented
with or without a photograph and collapsed across the Dead/Alive factor
(in Exps. 1A, 1B,and2). Negative values of cindicate a bias to respond
“true.”In Experiments 1and 2, photos (or words) affected bias for
unfamiliar names; in Experiment 3, photos affected bias for difficult trivia
statements. The error bars show 95 % within-subjects confidence inter-
vals for the photo/no-photo effect at each level of familiarity or difficulty
(see Masson & Loftus, 2003). The photo is presented courtesy of the New
Zealand National Party, under a Creative Commons license
Psychon Bull Rev
JrnlID 13423_ArtID 292_Proof# 1 - 28/06/2012
126 Related lines of research have shown that when people
127 can easily imagine a target, they often conclude—only
128 moments later—that a claim about it is more likely to be
129 true (Sherman, Cialdini, Schwartzman, & Reynolds,
130 1985; see Alter & Oppenheimer, 2009, for a review).
131 Photos should provide the raw materials for imagery,
132 thereby facilitating generation of the rich perceptual and
133 conceptual details that people typically interpret as cues
134 to reality (e.g., Johnson, 2006). Moreover, people are
135 inclined to trust photos, which are often the best evi-
136 dence that something actually occurred (Kelly & Nace,
137 1994). So, even if photos do not provide probative
138 evidence for a target claim (like the photo in Fig. 1),
139 they might nonetheless boost belief in the claim, because
140 photos are inherently credible in themselves. In a partic-
141 ularly worrisome example of this sort of bias, students
142 rated the scientific reasoning of a neuroscience article
143 more favorably if the article included an image of the
144 brain (McCabe & Castel, 2008).
145 This body of research suggests that photos might boost the
146 truthiness of claims by bootstrapping the generation of related
147 ideas and images, or by creating an aura of plausibility simply
148 because people find photos to be credible. Many studies have
149 demonstrated that imagination or repeated exposure to claims
150 can—over time—produce illusions of truth, belief, and mem-
151 ory (Bernstein, 2005;Brown&Marsh,2008; Garry, Manning,
152 Loftus, & Sherman, 1996; Lindsay, Hagen, Read, Wade, &
153 Garry, 2004). Here we propose that a claim coupled with a
154 related but nonprobative photo might, in the moment, com-
155 bine with confirmation bias to produce immediate truthiness
156 (cf. Hansen & Wänke, 2010).
157 In our first two experiments, we showed people familiar
158 and unfamiliar celebrity names; half of the celebrities
159 were alive. The celebrity names appeared either with or
160 without a photo. For each name, we asked some subjects
161 to judge the truth of the claim “This famous person is
162 alive.”The photos depicted celebrities alive, which might
163 be taken as evidence of celebrities being alive. Therefore,
164 we asked another group of subjects to respond to the
165 claim “This famous person is dead.”If photos help
166 people generate hypothesis-consistent thoughts and
167 images about unfamiliar celebrities, then photos should
168 increase the truthiness of claims about those celebrities,
169 regardless of whether the claim is that the celebrity is
170 alive or dead (cf. Unkelbach, 2007).
171 Experiments 1A and 1B
173 Subjects In Experiment 1A, 92 undergraduate psychology
174 students from Victoria University of Wellington, New
175Zealand, participated for course credit. In Experiment
1761B, 48 undergraduate psychology students from the
177University of Victoria, Canada, participated for optional
179Design We used a 2 (photograph: yes, no) × 2 (familiarity:
180familiar, unfamiliar) × 2 (claim: alive, dead) mixed design,
181manipulating photograph and familiarity within subjects and
182claim between subjects.
183Procedure On the basis of data from preliminary norming,
184we assembled sets of low- and moderate-familiarity celeb-
185rity names; for brevity, we refer to these as “unfamiliar”and
186“familiar”celebrities. Half of these celebrities were alive,
187and the names of the dead and alive celebrities were equated
188on familiarity (on a 5-point scale, M
00.58) and represented a similar
190range of eras and professions.
191We used Macintosh iBook G4 computers and PsyScope
192software to present 80 celebrity names—40 familiar and 40
193unfamiliar—to subjects. The names appeared, individually,
194in large black font against a white background. On half of
195the trials, subjects saw a photo of the celebrity engaged in
196his or her profession—for example, John Key, the current
197New Zealand prime minister, standing at a podium with
198microphones and a New Zealand flag (see Fig. 1).
199The order of the names was randomized for each subject,
200was counterbalanced so that names appeared equally often
201with or without a photo, and was orthogonal to the alive/
202dead and low/high familiarity variables. Subjects learned
203that sometimes they would see a photo and sometimes they
204would not. We did not provide any further instructions about
205how they should use the photo. As each name or name–
206photo pair appeared, we asked half of our subjects to decide
207the truth of the claim “This famous person is alive”and
208the other half to decide the truth of the claim “This
209famous person is dead.”We asked the subjects to re-
210spond “as quickly as possible, but not so quickly that
211you start making errors,”and asked them to respond
212within 3 s.
213Experiment 1B, a replication, followed the same proce-
214dure, but with new sets of “unfamiliar”and “familiar”
215celebrities assembled after new norming with Canadian
216students. The subjects saw 84 celebrity names, presented
217using E-Prime software (Psychology Software Tools Inc.,
218Sharpsburg, PA) on PCs. 219
In Experiment 1A, we did not record data for trials in which the
responses exceeded 3 s, which happened on 9.62 % of trials, but in
Experiment 1B, we recorded and analyzed all response times. Also,
because of a programming error, two celebrity names appeared in the
incorrect counterbalance; we excluded those names from the analyses,
but we found the same (significant) pattern of results when we did
Psychon Bull Rev
JrnlID 13423_ArtID 292_Proof# 1 - 28/06/2012
221 We calculated people’s bias (c) to say that a claim was true
222 (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999).
Figure 1shows that across
223 Experiments 1A and 1B, the black bars are relatively more
224 negative than the gray bars, indicating that pairing a claim
225 with a photo led people to be more inclined to say that the
226 claim was true. Relative to the no-photo control, people
227 were more biased to respond “true”(i.e., lower values of c)
228 when photos accompanied the names [Exp. 1A,F(1, 90) 0
229 4.87 η
0.05; Exp. 1B,F(1, 46) 010.53, η
0.19]. In both
230 experiments, the effect of photos tended to be larger for
231 unfamiliar names [Exp. 1A,t
Q3 (91) 02.21; Exp. 1B,t
fam(47) 03.74] than for familiar names [Exp. 1A,tfam
(91) 01.02, n.s.;
233 Experiment 1B,t
(47) 01.25, p0.22], although the
234 Photo × Familiarity interaction was significant only in
235 Experiment 1B,F(1, 46) 05.40, η
0.11, not in
236 Experiment 1A,F(1, 90) < 1.
237 Truthiness or aliveness? Consistent with our hypothesis that
238 photos promoted truthiness, not aliveness, the claim variable
239 (dead or alive) did not interact with photos (F<2).Therewas
240 a nonsignificant Photo × Familiarity × Claim interaction in
241 Experiment 1B,F(1, 46) 02.62, p0.11; this interaction was
242 also nonsignificant in Experiment 1A,F<1.
243 Interestingly, people tended to find “alive”claims to be true
244 more often than “dead”claims. In Experiment 1A,thispattern
245 was most pronounced for familiar names [Familiarity × Claim
246 interaction, F(1, 90) 013.05, η
(91) < 1]. In Experiment 1B, a similar tendency occurred
248 for all names, F(1, 46) 03.94, p0.05, η
251 As predicted, photos led to a truth bias for unfamiliar
252 celebrity names. These results fit with a mechanism
253 relating to cognitive availability: Photos might promote
254 truthiness because they provide a rich semantic context
255 that facilitates the generation of thoughts and images
256 relating to the claim. But these results also fit with
257 the idea that feelings of truthiness arose because photos
258 are inherently credible; people often regard photos as
259 evidence of reality. Indeed, Kelly and Nace (1994)
260 showed that people trust photos even when they distrust
261 the source in which they appear (e.g., the National
262 Enquirer). In a result perhaps related to this finding,
263 McCabe and Castel (2008) found that in contrast to
264 photorealistic images of the brain, bar graphs did not
265 enhance ratings of the scientific reasoning in an article
266 (see also Keehner, Mayberry, & Fischer, 2011). In
267Experiment 2, we examined whether the unique charac-
268teristics of photos are essential ingredients in producing
269truthiness. To address this question, we compared the
270effect of photos to the effect of verbal descriptions of
271those photos. If these verbal descriptions also produce
272truthiness, it would suggest that when people lack
273knowledge, anything that makes it easier for people to
274generate thoughts and images related to a claim should
275bias them toward believing that claim.
278Subjects A group of 54 undergraduate students from the
279University of Victoria, Canada, participated for optional
281Design We used a 2 (nonprobative information: yes, no) × 2
282(format of nonprobative information: photo, verbal) × 2
283(claim: alive, dead) mixed design. We manipulated the
284format (photo vs. verbal) and claim (dead vs. alive)
285between subjects, and also reduced the design by in-
286cluding only the condition that produces truthiness: un-
288Materials and procedure The subjects saw 52 names, which
289comprised 40 of the critical unfamiliar names from
290Experiment 1B and 12 moderate-familiarity celebrity
291names. We included a few moderate-familiarity names as
292fillers in order to make the task easier and more engaging for
294Half of the subjects saw a photograph of the celebrity
295paired with half of the names, and the other half saw a
296verbal description of the celebrity instead of a photo. We
297created verbal descriptions for each name by asking two
298raters to extract specific but nonprobative information from
299each celebrity photo: ethnicity, sex, hair, generic occupation,
300and a career-related concrete noun (e.g., the information for
301John Key would be white male; short brown straight hair;
302political leader; podium).
303Regardless of the format of the nonprobative information
304that sometimes appeared with celebrity names, subjects had
305the same task: Half responded to the truth of the claim “This
306famous person is alive,”and the other half to “This famous
307person is dead.”All other aspects of the method were
308identical to those of Experiment 1B.309
311Figure 1shows that photos and verbal descriptions produced
312a similar truthiness effect. That is, people were more biased
Table 1in the Supplemental Materials provides a brief summary of
the results of parallel d' analyses.
Psychon Bull Rev
JrnlID 13423_ArtID 292_Proof# 1 - 28/06/2012
313 to respond “true”when nonprobative information accompa-
314 nied names, F(1, 50) 010.27, η
0.17. Claim did not
315 interact with the presence or format of the nonprobative
316 information (all Fs < 1).
318 These findings show that truthiness is not tied to the
319 perceived credibility of photos. Instead, these results
320 point to a more general mechanism whereby manipula-
321 tions that facilitate elaboration, against the backdrop of
322 a confirmation bias, lead people to conclude that claims
323 are true. In Experiment 3, we further explored the
324 generalizability of the effect of nonprobative photos on
325 subjective truth, testing the hypothesis that general
326 knowledge claims (e.g., “Turtles are deaf”) seem truer
327 when paired with a photo that is related to, but does not
328 specifically depict, the claim.
329 Experiment 3
331 Subjects In Experiment 3, 70 undergraduate psychology
332 students from Victoria University of Wellington participated
333 for course credit.
334 Design We used a 2 (photograph: yes, no) × 2 (difficulty:
335 easy, hard) within-subjects design.
336 Procedure We used trivia statements from previous research
337 and data from preliminary norming to assemble sets of easy
338 and difficult true–false trivia statements that sampled gen-
339 eral knowledge (Nelson & Narens, 1980; Unkelbach, 2007).
340 People answered easy statements correctly 80 %–100 %
341 of the time and answered difficult statements correctly
342 40 %–60 % of the time.
343 We used the same presentation and response formats as in
344 the prior experiments. On half of the trials, subjects saw a
345 photo that depicted the grammatical subject of the statement
346 but did not provide any diagnostic information about wheth-
347 er the statement was true. For example, the claim that
348 “Macadamia nuts are in the same evolutionary family as
349 peaches”appeared with a photo of macadamia nuts.350
352 As Fig. 1shows, photos had the same effect as in our prior
353 experiments: They produced a truthiness effect, F(1, 69) 0
354 6.65, η
0.09. Although the interaction between difficulty
355 and claim did not reach significance, F(1, 69) 01.82, p0.18,
356 follow-up analyses supported a conclusion similar to the one
357from Experiments 1A and 1B, in that the effect was most
358pronounced when people evaluated difficult rather than easy
(69) 03.16, t
(69) 00.85, n.s.
360Although Fig. 1suggests that Experiments 1A, 1B, and 2
361might be interpreted as showing that photos move people
362toward a neutral bias, Experiment 3shows that photos move
363people toward truthiness. In Experiment 3, even without
364photos, people had a tendency to respond that claims were
365true, yet the photos still promoted truthiness.
367Across four experiments, nonprobative photos inflated tru-
368thiness. It is arguably unsurprising that photos inflated the
369truth of “alive”claims: The photos depicted celebrities alive,
370and should have facilitated imagery of those celebrities
371doing various things—all of which would be possible evi-
372dence of aliveness. The fascinating finding is that the same
373photos also inflated the truthiness of “dead”claims: The
374photos did not produce an “alive bias”but a “truth bias.”
375Moreover, the truthiness effect generalized beyond “dead”
376or “alive”judgments: Nonprobative photos enhanced the
377subjective truth of general knowledge claims, too.
378The finding that nonprobative verbal information also
379inflated truthiness suggests that the effect of photos on
380subjective truth is driven not simply by a perception that
381photos are inherently trustworthy. We speculate that non-
382probative photos and verbal information help people gen-
383erate pseudoevidence (cf. Kelly & Nace, 1994). People
384may selectively interpret information gleaned from a
385photo or description as consistent with their hypothesis
386and/or they may use such information to cue the mental
387generation of thoughts and images consistent with their
388hypothesis. It is also possible that the ease or fluency
389with which people bring related information to mind
390contributes to a feeling of truthiness. Although we cannot
391determine which of these mechanisms underlies the tru-
392thiness effect, across four experiments our data suggest a
393general mechanism whereby the availability of related but
394nonprobative information promotes the truthiness of un-
396Our findings suggest that even without repeated expo-
397sures or instructions to imagine, the mere presence of non-
398probative information such as photos might rapidly inflate
399the perceived truth of many types of true and false claims (cf.
400Brown & Marsh, 2008; Lindsay et al., 2004). They also
401suggest that neuroscience claims need not be accompanied
402by neuroimages to seem more credible: a photo or description
403of the author might suffice (cf. McCabe & Castel, 2008).
We thank Elizabeth Loftus for raising this possibility.
Psychon Bull Rev
JrnlID 13423_ArtID 292_Proof# 1 - 28/06/2012
404 We view the effects reported here not as qualitatively new
405 phenomena, but rather as lovely new exemplars of a grow-
406 ing family of effects pertaining to inferences (perhaps un-
407 consciously made) regarding the mental generation of
408 hypothesis-consistent evidence (Jacoby, Kelley, & Dywan,
409 1989; Johnson, 2006; Schwarz, 2010; Whittlesea, 2011). We
410 describe the photo effect as “lovely”for two reasons. First,
411 as compared to the other “truthiness-inducing manipula-
412 tions”with which we have experience, the effect of non-
413 probative photos seems to be quite robust. A robust effect is,
414 of course, an essential tool for theory development, and we
415 hope that future research will manipulate the presence ver-
416 sus absence of photosQ4 to explore the specific mechanisms
417 underlying its effect. Second, we believe that it is just plain
418 cool that the same manipulation that can lead people to think
419 that an obscure celebrity is alive can also lead them to think
420 that the celebrity is dead.
422 Author note We are grateful for the generous support provided by
423 the Marsden Fund and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
424 Council of Canada.
427 Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of
428 fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social
429 Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.
430 Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of process-
431 es in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the
432 illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
433 121, 446–458.
434 Bernstein, D. M. (2005). Making sense of memory. Canadian Journal
435 of Experimental Psychology, 59, 199–208.
436 Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for
437 understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall.
438 Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
439 Brown, A. S., & Marsh, E. J. (2008). Evoking false beliefs about
440 autobiographical experience. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
441 15, 186–190. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.186
442 Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996).
443 Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confi-
444 dence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 208–214.
445 Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not
446 believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social
447 Psychology, 65, 221–233.
448 Graesser, A. C., & Hemphill, D. (1991). Question answering in the
449 context of scientific mechanisms. Journal of Memory and Lan-
450 guage, 30, 186–209.
451 Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from
452 fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on
453 subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
454 1576–1588. doi:10.1177/0146167210386238
455 Henkel, L. A., & Mather, M. (2007). Memory attributions for choices:
456 How beliefs shape our memories. Journal of Memory and Lan-
457 guage, 57, 163–176.
458Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C. M., & Dywan, J. (1989). Memory attributions.
459In H. L. Roediger III & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Varieties of memory
460and consciousness: Essays in honour of Endel Tulving (pp. 391–
461422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
462Johnson, M. K. (2006). Memory and reality. American Psychologist,
464Keehner, M., Mayberry, L., & Fischer, M. H. (2011). Different clues
465from different views: The role of image format in public percep-
466tions of neuroimaging results. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
468Kelley, C. M., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for
469knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to
470general knowledge questions. Journal of Memory and Language,
472Kelly, J. D., & Nace, D. (1994). Knowing about digital imaging and
473believing news photographs. Visual Communications Quarterly,
475Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination
476of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207, 557–558.
477Lindsay, D. S. (2008). Source monitoring. In H. L. Roediger III & J.
478Byrne (Eds.), Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference.
479Vol. 2: Cognitive psychology of memory (pp. 325–348). Amster-
481Lindsay, D. S., Hagen, L., Read, J. D., Wade, K. A., & Garry, M.
482(2004). True photographs and false memories. Psychological
483Science, 15, 149–154.
484Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals
485for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of
486Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220. doi:10.1037/h0087426
487McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect
488of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition,
490Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information
491questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-
492knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behav-
493ior, 19, 338–368. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90266-2
494Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon
495in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
496Schwarz, N. (2010). Meaning in context: Metacognitive experiences.
497In B. Mesquita, L. F. Barrett, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), The mind in
498context (pp. 105–125). New York: Guilford Press.
499Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F., & Reynolds, K. D.
500(1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood
501of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery.
502Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 118–127.
503Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection
504theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
505Computers, 31, 137–149. doi:10.3758/BF03207704
506Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for
507judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5,
509Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the inter-
510pretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Psycholog-
511ical Science, 20, 135–138.
512Whittlesea, B. W. A. (1993). Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Exper-
513imental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19,
515Whittlesea, B. W. A. (2011). Remembering under the influence of
516unconscious expectations. In P. A. Higham & J. P. Leboe (Eds.),
517Constructions of remembering and metacognition: Essays in hon-
518or of Bruce Whittlesea (pp. 225–236). Houndmills, U.K.: Pal-
Psychon Bull Rev
JrnlID 13423_ArtID 292_Proof# 1 - 28/06/2012
AUTHOR PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUERIES.
Q1. Please check captured city for Affiliations 2 and 3 if correct.
Q2. Keywords added from metadata. Please check if correct.
Q3. Note that all subscripts in article are shortened to reduce chance they will break across lines.
Q4. Rephrased for clarity. Please check if correct.