Less Than I Expected and oh so True? On the Interplay Between Expectations and Framing Effects in Judgments of Truth

Jaffé, Mariela E.; Greifeneder, Rainer

doi:10.1177/0261927x19869392

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants read either a negatively framed or positively framed version of the statements and subsequently judged each statements' truthfulness. To our surprise, and inconsistent with prior evidence reported by Hilbig (2009), a first analysis yielded a positivity bias; that is, statements framed positively were more likely to be judged as true compared to negatively framed statements ( Jaffé & Greifeneder, 2019). Against the background of this evidence, it appears that there is more to understand about the negativity bias than previously thought.…”

Section: Refining the Perspective On The Negativity Biascontrasting

confidence: 74%

“…On a more fine-grained level, research on the Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon & Jones, 1976) further suggests that the direction of expectancy violation may be crucial: a positive violation (information is better than expected) leads to a less negative judgment compared to a negative violation (information is worse than expected). Jaffé and Greifeneder (2019) systematically tested the effect of individuals' expectations in regard to the percentage numbers and found throughout four studies that individuals' expectations moderate the negativity bias. Using a new set of items, the initial studies in this line failed to replicate the negativity bias.…”

Section: Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Psychology of Fake News

Greifeneder¹,

Jaffé²,

Newman³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume provides a great entry point into the vast and growing psychological literature on one of the defining problems of the early 21st century fake news and its dissemination. The chapters by leading scientists first focus on how (false) information spreads online and then examine the cognitive processes involved in accepting and sharing (false) information. The volume concludes by reviewing some of the available countermeasures. Anyone new to this area will find much here to satisfy their curiosity.

show abstract

Section: Refining the Perspective On The Negativity Biascontrasting

confidence: 74%

Section: Expectationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Fake News

Greifeneder¹,

Jaffé²,

Newman³

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This effect was replicated several times (Hilbig, 2012a , b ). Jaffé and Greifeneder ( 2019 ), however, underline in their recent work the importance of expectations in the context of this negativity bias. Based on their studies, they suggest that expectations and framing together increase believability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is it all about the feeling? Affective and (meta-)cognitive mechanisms underlying the truth effect

Stump

Rummel

Voß

2021

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People are more likely to judge repeatedly perceived statements as true. A decisive explanation for this so-called truth effect is that the repeated information can be processed more fluently than new information and that this fluency experience renders the information more familiar and trustworthy. Little is known, however, regarding whether and how affective states and dispositional cognitive preferences influence the truth effect. To this end, we conducted two experiments in which we manipulated (a) processing fluency via repetition, (b) the time interval (10 min vs. 1 week) between repetitions, and (c) short-term affective states using the presentation of emotional faces (Experiment 1) or the presence of an irrelevant source for changes in affective states (Experiment 2). Additionally, we assessed the dispositional variables need for cognitive closure (NCC), preference for deliberation (PD) and preference for intuition (PI). Results of Experiment 1 showed that the truth effect was significantly reduced for statements that were followed by a negative prime, although this was the case only for the longer repetition lag. Furthermore, higher NCC and lower PD scores were associated with an increased truth effect. Results of Experiment 2 replicated the moderating role of NCC and further showed that participants, who were provided with an alternative source for changes in their affective states, showed a reduced truth effect. Together, the findings suggest that (a) fluency-related changes in affective states may be (co-)responsible for the truth effect, (b) the truth effect is decreased when the repetition interval is long rather than short, and (c) the truth effect is increased for individuals with a higher need for cognitive closure. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

“…While this is inconsistent with earlier research (Hilbig, 2009(Hilbig, , 2012a(Hilbig, , 2012b, it should be noted that there may still be (unknown) item specificities that differentiate the items used in earlier work from ours. Very carefully, however, we conclude that the general notion that negative compared to positive is more likely to lead to the perception of truth might be less general than previously assumed (see also Jaffé & Greifeneder, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…In itself, this may be considered interesting, indicating that there might be more to tell about the negativity bias in judgments of truth than known so far. With the necessary note of caution, one may further speculate that item-specifics and/or individuals’ previous knowledge or expectations (see Jaffé & Greifeneder, 2019 ) may moderate the occurrence of the negativity bias.…”

Section: Study 1a (Nonregistered)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative Is True Here and Now, But Not So Much There and Then

Jaffé

Greifeneder

2020

Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. How do people judge the veracity of a message? The negativity bias in judgments of truth describes the phenomenon that the same message is more likely judged as true when framed negatively compared to positively. This manuscript investigates the negativity bias in conditions of psychological proximity and the possibility that the bias decreases when distance increases. This notion is informed by construal level theory, which holds that negative information is more salient and weighed more strongly in conditions of psychological proximity compared to distance. Against this background, we hypothesize that a negativity bias likely occurs in conditions of proximity. With increasing psychological distance, however, positively compared to negatively framed information is more likely to be judged true, therefore attenuating or even reversing the bias. Two studies provide preliminary yet weak support for this hypothesis. A final registered study put the preliminary conclusions to a critical test and yielded consistent results: We find a significant interaction between frame and distance, indicating a descriptive trend for a negativity bias in conditions of proximity, yet a positivity bias in conditions of distance. This interaction illustrates that psychological distance may impact the negativity bias in truth judgments.

show abstract

Less Than I Expected and oh so True? On the Interplay Between Expectations and Framing Effects in Judgments of Truth

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

The Psychology of Fake News

The Psychology of Fake News

Is it all about the feeling? Affective and (meta-)cognitive mechanisms underlying the truth effect

Negative Is True Here and Now, But Not So Much There and Then

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About