This ease-of-recall is known as fluency, and the effect of fluency is extremely wide-ranging. While the present paper shows that we judge fluent information as more true, previous work has shown that fluently processed faces are judged to be more attractive, and fluently processed names more frequent. In fact, the Nobel prize was awarded to Daniel Kahneman 2002 for work which showed, among other things, that the ease with which we can bring information to mind leads to an assortment of biases in decision making.
Though the authors believe that this fluency explanation is the most likely one, it is impossible at this stage to rule out other explanations. The authors speculate that it is possible, for example, that the pictures or text could lead people to preferentially look for evidence consistent with the statement. For example, if presented with a photo of a celebrity, and the statement, “This famous person is alive,” one might seek out elements of the picture which provide support for the statement that he or she is alive, and ignore those elements of the picture which might suggest that he or she is not alive, like signs the picture comes from a previous decade. Further work should be able to disentangle which explanation is more correct.
With profound apologies to Colbert, these findings suggest we would all be wise to be more critical of our feelings of truthiness. Is that health claim on your cereal box accompanied by a picture? Do the safety claims of the car ad in your magazine appear alongside other information about the vehicle? Does the assertion of a fact on a website appear next to a photo of the writer? Given that we will live with the consequences of this presidential elections for the next four years, we should pay close attention not only to the information presented by the candidates, but also the manner in which they present that information. There are many instances in which trusting the truth which comes from your gut could mean that you’re subscribing to something less than the truth. In other words: if it feels good, question it.
Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist at the Boston Globe. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentThe manipulation of truth is the goal of both religion and politics. Advertising is a close second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are so many potential explanations for these results that they are meaningless - simply fodder for dinner conversations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is very interesting, and apparently unexplored, is why would Colbert and others feel the need to use (invent?) the rather childish word 'truthiness', rather than use the already established word 'truthfulness'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Nicholforest asks:
why would Colbert and others feel the need to use (invent?) the rather childish word 'truthiness', rather than use the already established word 'truthfulness'.....
Because truthfulness refers to a quality of a statement. Truthiness refers to our perception of the statement.
2. Nicholforest:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are so many potential explanations for these results that they are meaningless - simply fodder for dinner conversations.
That's an interesting observation. I'm wondering what aspects of the published paper you thought were weak?
Mind instantly converts any situation or challenge it faces as good or bad.It feels comfortable in this. If the comfort of this conversion is kept at bay-one sees 'what is true'. Action, if any is also relaxed and conscious and not stereotyped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is always amazing to me how readily people buy into the incredibly weak "research" the therapy industry perpetually dreams up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can see in this thread people who have yet to tweak to the fact that one can write off nearly all of the "research" they produce as lightweight poorly thought out self-fulfilling prophecy.
One of the universal features of "research" of this sort is that it disintegrates into mere speculation when you look at the original research methods and techniques.
Self-delusion is one of the primary ailments we can see that plagues the psych-industry endemically and in epidemic proportions.
There is a naive and foolish willingness to take a trivial and barely significant observation and desperately try to transform it into some universal and profound truth.
Sadly... the class of people drawn to the field are predominantly people who have not a particle of ability to understand their own psyche much less anyone else's.
The likelihood of a study like this being actually valid is extremely low... virtually none of the research done by the psych industry stands up to rigorous examination of any sort.
We see poets and novelist.. speculators on the human condition... trying to clothe their speculations in scientific-seeming clothing.
It is quite funny to see this class of being rattling on about how a sense "truthiness" is aided with props and illustrations.
They, themselves, pretend to practice science, when they do nothing of the sort, and do so in order to (ultimately and usually falsely) give their speculations more weight in public discourse than the ideas deserve.
Were these people to practice the art of the poet or writer or artist or philosopher we could respect their efforts at describing and understanding the human condition... but noooooo... they have to pretend to be dealing in science.
It is funny indeed to see people who are so gullible and clueless rattling on about how gullible and clueless everyone else is.
Read the original article upon which this short piece is based. Go to the link at the foot of the article... and then go from the abstract to the full article at the "Springer" link, for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook at this bit of lightweight Sunday supplement amusement all dressed up like it was science.
There is not a single thing about the "experiment" that would lead anyone honest and rational to conclude it was even barely science of any sort.
This is an exercise in amusement.... one that might give one pause to think about people and how they understand things...but it is not even close to anything that could be called rational, careful scientifically valid activity.
We see the symbols of a scientific paper... which give a false sense of "truthiness" to this scientifically meaningless exercise.
It is just a toooooo perfectly ironic and wonderful thing to see.
Here is an article about how the irrelevant imagery and impressions may cause people to irrationally evaluate the "truthiness" of statements made. Yet, the article itself is a perfect illustration of how a totally bogus and scientifically worthless activity can be clothed in a white lab coat and presented as "science" when it quite plainly and objectively is nothing of the sort.
And... as an aside.... let us stop pretending the psyche-industry constitutes "scientists".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are no more scientists than are Creation Scientists.
The two superstitious belief systems map perfectly onto each other. It is what happens when people who are incapable of understanding science and the scientific method try desperately to use tools far beyond their ability.
We see silly, goofy people who are in awe of science but, sadly, are unable to make much use of it due to intellectual deficits that prevent them from doing so.
Why is this article published under Scientfic American auspice? Not seeing an article exposing 'truth' by how or what is examined, and what subjects are avoided. Want a true false issue on the next and greatest human calamity? In fifty years this planet will have 9 1/2 billion humans; in one hundred years, twelve billion. The United States has existed for only 237 years, and at this vector [not rate] in another 237 years the population will try to reach twenty-five billion. As for truthfulness or truthiness... why is this truth ignored by Scientific American? This is the most obvious "great human catastrophe" facing our species and in the very near future. Why the cross-eyed silence and such silly distraction as this? How can this be?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a bit of Sunday fluff, to be sure....but I would also be suspicious of anyone who condemns/rejects an entire academic/intellectual field or discipline, such as the commenter 'Caroline'...experience informs me that blanket rejections/condemnations of psychology/psychiatry (and/or psychotherapy) tend to come from Scientologists...who, of course, see their "philosophy" as competing with mainstream psychiatry, as well as being superior to it....speaking of 'truthiness'...perhaps an article analyzing how fringe philosophies/psychological theories adopt the appearance of truth (e.g., through scientific jargon, logical forms, fancy gizmos, etc.) in order to con people into "buying in" to said theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe you because there is no picture in your post!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot really, I actually agree with you completely. I just couldn't resist the impulse to over dramatize the authors point.
Do you mean e_Caroline, exactly the same as the clueless way you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your preconceived bias? After all you offered nothing at all to back up your claims. Where are the studies that substantiate your point of view?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKeep it simple. Colbert is a satirist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to question my "truthiness" on the validity of this study. You are limiting the study when you give your participants only the options of "true" or "false." On many of the questions used in the study, I am sure many people "didn't know" but still had to pick an answer. Not a good study. More research needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOriginal Query from NicholForest is basically, "why would Colbert invent a term like 'truthiness'?" Indeed, why, if a perfectly adequate word like 'truthfulness' has existed for a Century or two does some comedian feel so compelled? Answer is easy and clear! For FUN, PROFIT & VANITY. Let me explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a longtime SA reader, I'm neither a Scientist nor an Academic, although I've been an Adjunct Faculty for half my adult lifetime, at Illinois, Delaware & Drexel, since the mid-1970s. I work at the intersection of the Social Sciences, the synthesis of the applied behavioral sciences, in Strategic Communications, Behavioral Communications, Public Affairs, Marketing, Reputation & Relationship Management, etc. In fact, akin to someone on this list who might have headed her or his professional society, I served as the elected global / national president of my industry's professional society in 1999.
In our industry, we learn early to "frame the issues" to benefit our client(s) or employer. The more we can define the terms of semantic engagement, the better in an advocacy / adversarial situation we improve our chances of "winning," whatever that is. That's the reason you'll regularly see new terms invented in political debates. It happens all the time. And sometimes we'll become known for those. My longtime neighbor Joe Biden, who lives just a block from me, came up with the best phrase of the 2012 campaign, "Osama Bin Laden is Dead and General Motors is Alive!" I don't know that it won Obama-Biden any votes in the long run, but it's a great contributor to political narrative.
If you are a Celebrity, like Mr. Colbert, who profits at the expense of American civic life by ridiculing politicians and political behavior for entertainment, to create a Brand and great Wealth for himself, then this is one of the tools in his arsenal. Invent a word, and "claim" it, much as a biologist might discover a new specie and name it. It builds his Brand as COLBERT THE COMEDIAN and pundit, it's something he has fun with it (as hopefully each of us finds satisfaction in our work), and it's a tool for increasing his income.
Sam Waltz, APR, Fellow PRSA
Greenville, Wilmington, DE 19807
All of us - me included - are apt to judge a statement as true, if it concurs with our existing prejudices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is generally true, but you can train yourself to be much more disciplined in evaluating the reliability of statements or information. I have instant reactions all the time, but if the subject is important I go through my own process of fact-checking and analyzing the arguments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a political sense there is a simple device that helps sort out issues and that's to read "opposition" journals and try to understand their arguments. When you do this consistently you will learn that political issues are a lot more equivocal than they initially seem, and that there are good arguments on both sides.
I've found myself changing my mind on more than one occasion. Generally speaking, I think the more calming and self-righteous we feel by viscerally accepting a point of view the more likely it is distorted or accepted by reasons other than its veracity, primarily because it makes us feel good about ourselves to believe it.
I think a lot of today's social movements exist for that reason. They don't solve root problems and are always redefining things to require more sacrifice, but they sure do boost our image of ourselves for being so altruistic. There’s a kind of “evangelism” in strong political opinions.
The more disquieting a fact is that we feel obliged to accept on hard evidence, the more likely it is to have some basis in fact. It's amazing the contortions people will go through to avoid this, however, especially when they have social or ego investments in the original beliefs or attachments. Activists all across the political spectrum are prone to this. Leftists usually attack the motives and character of the bearer of contrary views and right-wingers dispute the facts.
Nevertheless, feelings usually triumph over reality and that bodes ill for us all.