The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity

Abstract

AbstractUsing factual information of uncertain truth value as the stimulus material, previous investigators have found that repeated statements are rated more valid than non‐repeated statements. Experiments 1 and 1A were designed to determine if this effect would also occur for opinion statements and for statements initially rated either true or false. Subjects were exposed to a 108‐statement list one week and a second list of the same length a week later. This second list was comprised of some of the statements seen earlier plus some statements seen for the first time. Results suggested that all types of repeated statements are rated as more valid than their non‐repeated counterparts. Experiment 2 demonstrated that the validity‐enhancing effect of repetition does not occur in subject domains about which a person claims not be knowledgeable. From the results of both studies we concluded that familiarity is a basis for the judged validity of statements. The relation between this phenomenon and the judged validity of decisions and predictions was also discussed.