Fluency, familiarity, aging, and the illusion of truth
Abstract
Research has shown that repeated statements are rated as more credible than new statements. However, little research has examined whether such "illusions of truth" can be produced by contextual (nonmnemonic) influences, or compared to the magnitude of these illusions in younger and older adults. In two experiments, we examined how manipulations of perceptual and conceptual fluency influenced truth and familiarity ratings made by young and older adults. Stimuli were claims about companies or products varying in normative familiarity. Results showed only small effects of perceptual fluency on rated truth or familiarity. In contrast, manipulating conceptual fluency via semantic/textual context had much larger effects on rated truth and familiarity, with the effects modulated by normative company familiarity such that fluency biases were larger for lesser-known companies. In both experiments, young and older adults were equally susceptible to fluency-based biases.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Framing fluency illusion in this way helps reconcile apparent inconsistencies in the existing literature.
“Framing fluency illusion in this way helps reconcile apparent inconsistencies in the existing literature [49].”
From Fluency Illusion: A Review on Influence of ChatGPT in Classroom Settings (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 109
- Authors
- Parks, C. M., & Toth, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University of California System (US)
- University of North Carolina Wilmington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parks, Colleen M.
- ORCID
- Parks, Colleen M.
- Venue
- Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-06
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 225-253
- ISSN
- 0928-9917 (ISSN-L)
- 1382-5585
- 1744-4128
- OpenAlex
- W2108956744
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- perceptual fluency, conceptual fluency, familiarity, aging, older adults, truth judgments, semantic context
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Advertising, Aged, Aging, Concept Formation, Female, Habituation, Psychophysiologic, Humans, Illusions, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Reading, Reality Testing, Mental Recall, Retention, Psychology, Set, Psychology, Truth Disclosure, Vocabulary
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
