When the Unlikely Becomes Likely: Qualifying Language Does Not Influence Later Truth Judgments
Judgments and decisions are frequently made under uncertainty. People often express and interpret this uncertainty with epistemic qualifiers (e.g., likely, improbable). We investigate the extent to which qualifiers influence truth judgments over time. In four studies, participants studied qualified statements, and two days later they rated the truth of previously qualified statements along with new statements. Previously qualified statements were rated as more likely true than new statements, even when the qualifiers had distinctly opposite meanings (i.e., certain versus impossible; Study 1) and when all qualifiers cast doubt on the veracity of the statements (e.g., improbable, impossible; Studies 2–4). Three additional studies suggested that this effect was not dependent on memory for the qualifiers. Consistent with a fluency interpretation, prior exposure made the statements easier to read, driving truth judgments, and overriding the influence of qualifying information. Implications for improving communication using qualifiers are discussed.
Duke Scholars
Published In
DOI
ISSN
Publication Date
Volume
Issue
Start / End Page
Related Subject Headings
- 5204 Cognitive and computational psychology
- 5202 Biological psychology
- 1702 Cognitive Sciences
- 1701 Psychology
Citation
Published In
DOI
ISSN
Publication Date
Volume
Issue
Start / End Page
Related Subject Headings
- 5204 Cognitive and computational psychology
- 5202 Biological psychology
- 1702 Cognitive Sciences
- 1701 Psychology