{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024818633066055747, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003436426116838488, 'mean_word_length': 5.2829736211031175, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Nonprobative Photos Inflate the Truthiness and Falsiness of Claims

When people evaluate claims they often rely on what comedian Stephen Colbert calls truthiness, judging claims using subjective feelings of truth, rather than drawing on facts. Over seven experiments I examined how nonprobative photos can manufacture truthiness in just a few seconds. I found that a quick exposure to a photo that relates to, but does not provide any probative evidence about the accuracy of claims can systematically bias people to conclude claims are true. In Experiments 1A and 1B, people saw familiar and unfamiliar celebrity names and, for each, quickly responded "true" or "false" to the claim "This famous person is alive" or (between subjects) "This famous person is dead." Within subjects, some names appeared with a photo of the celebrity engaged in his/her profession whereas other names appeared alone. For unfamiliar celebrity names, photos increased the likelihood that subjects judged the claim to be true. Moreover, the same photos inflated the truth of "Alive" and "Dead" claims, suggesting that photos did not produce an "alive bias," but a "truth bias." Experiment 2 showed that photos and verbal information similarly inflated truthiness, suggesting that the effect is not peculiar to photographs per se. Experiment 3 demonstrated that nonprobative photos can also enhance the truthiness of general knowledge claims (Giraffes are the only mammals that cannot jump). In Experiments 4-6 I examined boundary conditions for truthiness. I found that the semantic relationship between the photo and claim mattered. Experiment 4 showed that in a within-subject design, related photos produced truthiness, but unrelated photos acted just like the no photo condition. But unrelated photos were not always benign, Experiment 5 showed that their effects depended on experimental context. In a mixed design, related photos produced truthiness and unrelated photos produced falsiness. Although the effect of related photos was robust across materials and variation in experimental context, when I used a fully between-subjects design in Experiment 6, the effect of photos (related and unrelated) was eliminated. These effects add to a growing literature on how nonprobative information can influence people’s decisions and suggest that nonprobative photographs do more than simply decorate, they can rapidly manufacture feelings of truth. As with many effects in the cognitive psychology literature, the photo-truthiness effect depends on the way in which people process and interpret photos when evaluating the truth of claims.