CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 98Epistemology, Ethics, and MetaphysicsDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsPsychology of Social Influence

External validity of laboratory experiments: the frequency-validity relationship

Gigerenzer, Gerd·1984·The American Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.2307/1422594
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The question of the generalizability of laboratory experiments to the natural settings of ordinary people was investigated in a case study on the frequency-validity relationship. Previously advocated by John Locke and David Hartley, this relationship states that the mere repetition of plausible but unfamiliar assertions increases the belief in the validity of the assertions, independent of their actual truth or falsity. The external validity of this relationship was tested for a random sample drawn from telephone listings of adults living in Schwabing, Munich. Subjects were tested in their homes rather than in a university laboratory. The increase in mean validity judgments by repetition, its independence from actual truth or falsity, as well as the absolute and relative size of the effect were found to be in ex-

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/1422594

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Familiarity is a key determinant of the illusory truth effect; when something seems familiar it is easier to process and one is more inclined to believe it, regardless of whether the statement is factually true or false or was initially rated as credible or questionable.

    “Familiarity appears as a key determinant of this effect; indeed, when something seems familiar is easier to process and one is more inclined to believe it [24], regardless of whether the statement is factually true or false [22, 47] or was initially rated as credible or questionable [48].”

    From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [47]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gigerenzer, G.
Corresponding author
Gigerenzer, Gerd
ORCID
Gigerenzer, Gerd
Venue
The American Journal of Psychology
Publisher
University of Illinois Press
Published
1984
Volume
97
Issue
2
Pages
185
ISSN
0002-9556 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/1422594
OpenAlex
W2326020995
Cited by
98
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
generalizability, laboratory experiments, naturalistic settings, home testing, John Locke, David Hartley

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