Talk:Illusory truth effect/Archive 1

Mere exposure effect

I have added a link to the Mere exposure effect, as it seems like a pretty similar concept. I would like a more seasoned wikipedian to confirm this is appropriate.

The illusory truth effect is not the same as the mere exposure effect, although they both rely on familiarity. While the mere exposure effect refers to the tendency to develop a preference for more familiar objects or individuals, the illusory truth effect refers to believing information that is frequently encountered. Sowallabear (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Duke Wikipedia Project

There are a few things that we'd like to change add to this page to provide more information about the Illusory Truth Effect

1. I would like to add an actual short explanation about what the Illusory Truth Effect is at the beginning of the article, instead of just jumping into talk of a research study that was done. Ehardiman (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

2. I would like to add a section about the different aids that exist for the Illusory Truth Effect, such as: novels, movies, social media, advertisements, etc. I think it would be interesting to explain where these illusory truths come from and why they are so easily propagated. Ehardiman (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, to add to the changes above, I would also like to include the following:

1. Add effects of illusory truth on young people vs. old people Ashley (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

2. Link this page to other articles that are relevant to the topic of illusory truth (ex. truthiness, false memory, fluency, etc.) Ashley (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to link this to other relevant concepts, and I like the articles you've suggested. My concern/suggestion is to make sure that you make clear what the relationship between illusory truth and concept x is. For example, illusory truth and fluency heuristic or mere-exposure effect are related in a different way than false memory and illusory truth. Jennjiyoun (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the above changes, I think it is important to reorganize the structure of the article, specifically moving what is currently written to a history section, which would be more appropriate for the content. I would also like to discuss the effects of illusory truth on implicit memory as opposed to explicit, and the importance and real-world relevance of this finding. Darcy.watts (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I would love to see the addition proposed in point 1. above. Older adults show the illusory truth effect to a lesser extent than younger adults when general knowledge is involved, which supports the assertion knowledge is preserved (or even increases) over the life span. Sowallabear (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Make sure you add some studies and their explanations other than the one stated. Where is the field headed? what has been learned on the topic recently? How does it work cognitively? Why does it happen? How does it affect memory? Maybe some information on heuristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomainDecrop (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to use these two websites to talk about the Illusory Truth Effect:

1. Dahl, Melissa. "Even People Who Know Better Fall for Lies If They Hear Them Enough." Science of Us. N.p., 30 Nov. 2015. Web. 17 Apr. 2016. <http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/11/why-even-people-who-know-better-fall-for-lies.html>.

2. Linster, Greg. "Mistaking Repetition for Truth." Coffeetheory.com. N.p., 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2015. <http://coffeetheory.com/category/the- illusory-of-truth-effect/>.

Would these sources be acceptable to use to further the information on the illusory truth effect?Ehardiman (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, these two sources would be good sources to use to discuss the Illusory Truth Effect. I think the first source has a lot more scientific information and examples that could be used to further the discussion of this effect, especially since most of the examples that are used are/were experienced outside of the lab. In relation to the comment above with the questions, possibly including information about how this effect could be reduced or fixed in society could be beneficial. Alex21golf (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, we will be sure to incorporate real-world examples. Specifically, I think politics and the criminal justice system would be a good addition. Darcy.watts (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe a naive reader would understand how the Fazio paper led to a conclusion about fluency. Elizareader (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I would not cite something you have not read - the aging work is actually not yet published and thus not appropriate for wikipedia. Elizareader (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe the courtroom sections to be too speculative. Elizareader (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

All the applications should be combined into a single section. The basic effect occurs in the laboratory; to discuss the applications you either need to make clear that you are just pointing to likely instances in the world, or else point to data that supports your arguments. Elizareader (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Update and expansion

I recently made a bold edit updating the page and would appreciate any feedback from other editors regarding these changes. Please address any points of contention here on the talk page to discuss. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination

Rather than a review, I will do some editing and suggestions for improvements. To begin with I will remove availability cascade from the opening, since it is a distinct phenomenon rather than an aka for this topic.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Illusory truth effect/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 06:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Will review. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 06:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   See 1, 5, and 6

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   See 2, 4, and 7

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   See 3

   C. No original research:

   See 3

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See 5

   B. Focused (see summary style):

   See 6 and 7

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On Hold 7 days

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. I'm still rather confused about what the effect is. The article as it stands just seems to be a list of loosely connected psychology papers. While the initial study's methodology is extensively discussed, adequate description of the results and discussion of them are lacking. The authors found an effect but how did they, or other subsequent studies, explain why this effect occurs at all. The closest the article gets to explaining the psychological basis of this effect is one sentence about hindsight bias which left me more confused than informed. There's a second sentence, separated by an unsourced paragraph on a different topic (see number 3), that cites the exact same source, and gives slightly more information but no more clarity

2. Equally pressing is the vagueness and puffery of much of the article. "One science writer", "some researchers", who are these people? "essentially replicated the original study" What does "essentially" mean and what makes it not a full replication? "The truth effect plays a significant role in various fields of activity", "Examples of the truth effect can be found everywhere." yet only three examples are given to substantiate those two claims. Conversely, much of the references to papers are far too specific w/r/t the number of authors named in the text: "Eryn J. Newman, Mevagh Sanson, Emily K. Miller, Adele Quigley-McBride, Jeffrey L. Foster, Daniel M. Bernstein, and Maryanne Garry" I have a 15" screen and this takes up half of it, it would be far more easily read if it were referenced like most multiauthor papers as Newman, et al..

3. The second paragraph of the Hindsight Bias section seems to be entirely original research, and in the Cato instance fails to cite the "one study" it refers to.

4. Only one of the alternative names is mentioned in the prose; where do the others come from? Why do different researchers call it different things?

5. The study on it's relation to "truthiness" positions itself as showing that the truth effect is impacted by more than simple repetition but contextual information surrounding it. In fact, the study it cites says as much in its abstract: recollection of sources can hinder the truth effect and that memorability of sources is important for whether the truth effect occurs or not. This important aspect of the effect is obscured by opaque quotes.

6. More generally, the article has an issue with overusing quotations where summary and paraphrasing of information would be more useful and accessable.

7. The lead doesn't adequately summarize the content of the article, and in fact contains information not elsewhere mentioned in the text.

Discussion

3. The content contained in this section is supported in the reference provided at the end of the section [1]. Can you be more specific? Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You're correct, my bad on that one. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

4. Would you suggest adding reliable sources using alternative names or removing the variations all together from the lead? I can't seem to find information as to why there are so many alternative names. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the changes you made are good, those seem to be the two main names and they don't cause much of a readability problem. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Results

On hold for 7 days, with a possible extension provided progress is being made. I have a number of reservations about whether these issues can be addressed in that time, but considering this article has been waiting for a review for almost a year I want to give it a chance before it gets sent back into the pool. If you have questions or comments I'm happy to discuss. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 08:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch was changed on the 5th if you want to give this another look. Wizardman 02:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Listed as a Good Article @Meatsgains: Sorry for taking so long with this, I took it up at what turned out to be a bad time in real life and wound up forgetting about it. Regardless, looking at your changes I feel confident in promoting the article to GA status. That said there is certainly room for improvement, and as you'll see I made a few changes that I hope improve the article (but obviously, feel free to revert), but I am satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 22:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thanks! Much appreciated. Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)