<p>While perhaps not of the seriousness sought, an apparently related term is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">truthiness</a>. From Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Truthiness</strong> is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intuition</a> or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">evidence</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic" rel="nofollow noreferrer">logic</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intellectual</a> examination, or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact" rel="nofollow noreferrer">facts</a>.[<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131116045748/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/opinion/meyer/main2250923.shtml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>][<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/truthiness" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Three basic filtering mechanisms come to mind for the brain to recognise misinformation: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination" rel="nofollow noreferrer">imagination</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intuition</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason" rel="nofollow noreferrer">reason</a>. If an idea or &quot;fact&quot; can be <em>imagined</em>, seems at least somewhat <em>intuitive</em>, and has no obvious <em>inconsistencies</em>, whether internally, or with existing beliefs, then presumably little <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cognitive dissonance</a> will stand in the way of integrating the idea. A couple notable exceptions may be (1) when the source is known to be unreliable or (2) when deception is suspected.</p>
<p>One of the tips taught in persuasion is that if you can get someone to imagine a scenario, that scenario will be more likely believed as possible, or as having actually happened, even in the absence of proper evidence. This phenomenon may be due to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processing_fluency" rel="nofollow noreferrer">processing fluency</a>. From Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Processing fluency</strong> is the ease with which information is processed. Perceptual fluency is the ease of processing stimuli based on manipulations to perceptual quality. Retrieval fluency is the ease with which information can be retrieved from memory.[<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1088868309341564" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>]</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Other studies have shown that when presenting people with a factual statement, manipulations that make the statement easier to mentally process—even totally nonsubstantive changes like writing it in a cleaner <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font" rel="nofollow noreferrer">font</a> or making it <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme" rel="nofollow noreferrer">rhyme</a> or simply repeating it—can alter judgment of the truth of the statement, along with evaluation of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intelligence</a> of the statement's author.[<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160613150559/http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/easy__true/?page=full" rel="nofollow noreferrer">15</a>] This is called the &quot;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect" rel="nofollow noreferrer">illusion of truth</a> effect&quot;. Multiple studies have found that subjects were more likely to judge easy-to-read statements as true.[<a href="https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fccog.1999.0386" rel="nofollow noreferrer">16</a>][<a href="https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13423-012-0292-0" rel="nofollow noreferrer">17</a>][<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/truthiness_research_cognitive_biases_for_simple_clear_conservative_messages.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">18</a>] This means that perceived beauty and judged truth have a common underlying experience, namely processing fluency. Indeed, experiments showed that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty" rel="nofollow noreferrer">beauty</a> is used as an indication for the correctness of mathematical solutions. This supports the idea that beauty is intuitively seen as truth.[<a href="https://doi.org/10.3758%2FPBR.15.6.1174" rel="nofollow noreferrer">19</a>] Processing fluency may be one of the foundations of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intuition</a>[<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0014678" rel="nofollow noreferrer">20</a>] and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_effect" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Aha!&quot; experience</a>.[<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721410388803" rel="nofollow noreferrer">21</a>][<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20160304043438/http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/january-11/aha-the-23-across-phenomenon.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">22</a>]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A common theme seems to be that in the absence of dissonance or discomfort, encountered information is likely to be accepted. Perhaps this phenomenon follows from the brain's tendency to accept directly perceived stimuli as true and real. In a way, something imagined <em>becomes</em> seen, albeit in the mind's eye.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-29T21:47:47.730Z
2022-03-29T21:47:47.730Z
Michael
<p>I believe there is a universal (or, highly regular in the mechanisms of cognition) human tendency to believe a proposition just because they encountered it. I mean this in a very specific way. It’s like they mistake someone asserting something for the discovery of a fact, from the oblivion. It’s almost like when propositions are placed somewhere free from context, the human mind through evolution has developed an (advantageous) tendency to absorb information / beliefs rapidly as they are transmitted. It would be way too much of an expense of cognitive energy to have to consider all logical factors necessary for a proposition to really be true. Even intelligent people must do it, it’s necessary for day to day functioning, and survival in / keeping up with a culture. You can imagine in paleolithic times, someone might say, &quot;There are blackberries in X location,&quot; and it's almost like a computer sending a transmission which automatically gets received. The sort of &quot;scrutiny&quot; mechanisms of human thought are not always active. There are times where just because someone said something, you immediately assume it's true without realizing or thinking about it, to the extent that you might transmit that information to someone else with the sense that it is authoritative knowledge. It's almost like we can intuitively distinguish between reported knowledge vs. (at least what we consider) an absolute fact, except we don't do it accurately - we are biased in favor of absolute facts over reported knowledge.</p>
<p>In the extreme case it’s someone just believing anything they read online indiscriminately, but there are plenty of subtle everyday cases too. Sort of like Kahneman’s “WYSIWYG” concept (what you see is what you get), or could be an acronym such as the “I know it’s true because somebody said so” phenomenon. It’s meant to be more subtle and nuanced than just the general notion of being gullible.</p>
<p>Have any scientists discussed this aspect of human psychology?</p>
<p>Thank you</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-29T20:01:47.670Z
This isn't quite true as stated.  People readily accept information that agrees with their pre-existing beliefs, but often staunchly reject information that does not.  In some ways the situation is worse than described, as people sometimes come to believe information that they have explicitly been told is false, due to the truth effect (read more [here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/20865/7001)).
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-30T07:13:23.223Z
I read about this in the context of argumentation theory. I need to think more about where specifically. Might have been Mercier & Sperber. Or maybe it was in fact Kahneman; could you include more background to that, in particular explain how it is not what you are looking for?
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-03-30T08:18:26.460Z
Possibly Kahneman's [anchoring bias](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/anchoring-bias): "Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic."
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-02T10:20:03.347Z
@Arnon Weinberg. One way I think this differs from confirmation bias is that it relates to conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs, which must when first encountered be novel, rather than be supporting a preexisting belief. I'm considering someone seeing an ad that says "This woman cured her cancer by eating acai berries", and instead of thinking, "We have no idea who wrote this or if they are a credible source," merely thinking, "Hey look, this thing happened, I didn't know about that." I think the same occurs every time someone reads a Wikipedia article.
Julius Hamilton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-02T10:22:57.040Z
It's like once information is decontextualized, some internal mechanism of information absorption / learning is active - absorbing data from the environment - runs automatically. There are a number of aspects of human behavior which I believe are sort of "on autopilot", like we are in our operating mode without undergoing some more costly cognitive effort for something. (Sorry, I know I alread said this, just trying to develop it further.)
Julius Hamilton
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-02T10:23:03.570Z
I guess to flesh out my idea by considering what I consider the opposite of this phenomenon to be, like, when, and in what cases, do people not just automatically believe what you tell them.
Julius Hamilton
<belief>
Is there a term to refer to humans' automatic belief of encountered information?
Julius Hamilton
# Is there a term to refer to humans' automatic belief of encountered information?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-03-29)

I believe there is a universal (or, highly regular in the mechanisms of cognition) human tendency to believe a proposition just because they encountered it. I mean this in a very specific way. It’s like they mistake someone asserting something for the discovery of a fact, from the oblivion. It’s almost like when propositions are placed somewhere free from context, the human mind through evolution has developed an (advantageous) tendency to absorb information / beliefs rapidly as they are transmitted. It would be way too much of an expense of cognitive energy to have to consider all logical factors necessary for a proposition to really be true. Even intelligent people must do it, it’s necessary for day to day functioning, and survival in / keeping up with a culture. You can imagine in paleolithic times, someone might say, "There are blackberries in X location," and it's almost like a computer sending a transmission which automatically gets received. The sort of "scrutiny" mechanisms of human thought are not always active. There are times where just because someone said something, you immediately assume it's true without realizing or thinking about it, to the extent that you might transmit that information to someone else with the sense that it is authoritative knowledge. It's almost like we can intuitively distinguish between reported knowledge vs. (at least what we consider) an absolute fact, except we don't do it accurately - we are biased in favor of absolute facts over reported knowledge.

In the extreme case it’s someone just believing anything they read online indiscriminately, but there are plenty of subtle everyday cases too. Sort of like Kahneman’s “WYSIWYG” concept (what you see is what you get), or could be an acronym such as the “I know it’s true because somebody said so” phenomenon. It’s meant to be more subtle and nuanced than just the general notion of being gullible.

Have any scientists discussed this aspect of human psychology?

Thank you

**Tags:** belief

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This isn't quite true as stated.  People readily accept information that agrees with their pre-existing beliefs, but often staunchly reject information that does not.  In some ways the situation is worse than described, as people sometimes come to believe information that they have explicitly been told is false, due to the truth effect (read more [here](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/20865/7001)).  
> **username_2**: I read about this in the context of argumentation theory. I need to think more about where specifically. Might have been Mercier & Sperber. Or maybe it was in fact Kahneman; could you include more background to that, in particular explain how it is not what you are looking for?  
> **username_2**: Possibly Kahneman's [anchoring bias](https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/anchoring-bias): "Anchoring bias is a cognitive bias that causes us to rely too heavily on the first piece of information we are given about a topic."  
> **username_0**: @username_1. One way I think this differs from confirmation bias is that it relates to conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs, which must when first encountered be novel, rather than be supporting a preexisting belief. I'm considering someone seeing an ad that says "This woman cured her cancer by eating acai berries", and instead of thinking, "We have no idea who wrote this or if they are a credible source," merely thinking, "Hey look, this thing happened, I didn't know about that." I think the same occurs every time someone reads a Wikipedia article.  
> **username_0**: It's like once information is decontextualized, some internal mechanism of information absorption / learning is active - absorbing data from the environment - runs automatically. There are a number of aspects of human behavior which I believe are sort of "on autopilot", like we are in our operating mode without undergoing some more costly cognitive effort for something. (Sorry, I know I alread said this, just trying to develop it further.)  
> **username_0**: I guess to flesh out my idea by considering what I consider the opposite of this phenomenon to be, like, when, and in what cases, do people not just automatically believe what you tell them.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-03-29. Score: 4

While perhaps not of the seriousness sought, an apparently related term is [truthiness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness). From Wikipedia:

> **Truthiness** is the belief or assertion that a particular statement is true based on the [intuition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)) or perceptions of some individual or individuals, without regard to [evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence), [logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), [intellectual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) examination, or [facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact).[[1](https://web.archive.org/web/20131116045748/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/12/opinion/meyer/main2250923.shtml)][[2](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/truthiness)]

Three basic filtering mechanisms come to mind for the brain to recognise misinformation: [imagination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination), [intuition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition), and [reason](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason). If an idea or "fact" can be *imagined*, seems at least somewhat *intuitive*, and has no obvious *inconsistencies*, whether internally, or with existing beliefs, then presumably little [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) will stand in the way of integrating the idea. A couple notable exceptions may be (1) when the source is known to be unreliable or (2) when deception is suspected.

One of the tips taught in persuasion is that if you can get someone to imagine a scenario, that scenario will be more likely believed as possible, or as having actually happened, even in the absence of proper evidence. This phenomenon may be due to [processing fluency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processing_fluency). From Wikipedia:

> **Processing fluency** is the ease with which information is processed. Perceptual fluency is the ease of processing stimuli based on manipulations to perceptual quality. Retrieval fluency is the ease with which information can be retrieved from memory.[[1](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1088868309341564)]

> Other studies have shown that when presenting people with a factual statement, manipulations that make the statement easier to mentally process—even totally nonsubstantive changes like writing it in a cleaner [font](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font) or making it [rhyme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhyme) or simply repeating it—can alter judgment of the truth of the statement, along with evaluation of the [intelligence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) of the statement's author.[[15](https://web.archive.org/web/20160613150559/http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/31/easy__true/?page=full)] This is called the "[illusion of truth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect) effect". Multiple studies have found that subjects were more likely to judge easy-to-read statements as true.[[16](https://doi.org/10.1006%2Fccog.1999.0386)][[17](https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13423-012-0292-0)][[18](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/truthiness_research_cognitive_biases_for_simple_clear_conservative_messages.html)] This means that perceived beauty and judged truth have a common underlying experience, namely processing fluency. Indeed, experiments showed that [beauty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty) is used as an indication for the correctness of mathematical solutions. This supports the idea that beauty is intuitively seen as truth.[[19](https://doi.org/10.3758%2FPBR.15.6.1174)] Processing fluency may be one of the foundations of [intuition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge))[[20](https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0014678)] and the ["Aha!" experience](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_effect).[[21](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0963721410388803)][[22](https://web.archive.org/web/20160304043438/http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/january-11/aha-the-23-across-phenomenon.html)]

A common theme seems to be that in the absence of dissonance or discomfort, encountered information is likely to be accepted. Perhaps this phenomenon follows from the brain's tendency to accept directly perceived stimuli as true and real. In a way, something imagined *becomes* seen, albeit in the mind's eye.


---

