Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

How Pictures Skew Our Judgment 141

An article at Ars summarizes a study into how simply seeing pictures can alter what we believe, even if the pictures don't provide any information about the topic at hand (abstract). Researchers asked true-or-false questions to a group of test subjects about whether a minor celebrity was still alive. When they provided a picture of the celebrity, more people evaluated the statement as 'true' than when no picture was provided. The researchers then switched the question, asking whether it was true or false that the celebrity was dead. Again, the subjects shown a picture were more likely to respond with 'true.' Experiments also showed this phenomenon wasn't limited to questions about people, but general knowledge as well. "The authors spend a bit of time discussing why this sort of truth bias might arise. In cases where we have rich information—a photo or detailed description of something—it's easier to pull additional information out of our memory. So, even if a photo doesn't tell us much about whether the person is alive, it does make it easier to retrieve relevant information on them—if they're wearing a suit in the photo, we might reason they're a political or financial figure, etc. When the information flows that readily, we're more likely to conclude that we're familiar with the question that's being posed, and will then tend to conclude it's true."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Pictures Skew Our Judgment

Comments Filter:
  • by SillyHamster ( 538384 ) on Friday August 10, 2012 @12:10PM (#40947951)

    "Not (yet?) proven true" is not "false".

    In logic, it's trivial to flip any statement so that your default presumption of falsehood becomes the exact opposite given a different statement

    "John is a liar" -> False, he must be an honest man!

    "John is an honest man" -> False, he must be a liar!

    Same rule, opposite outcomes based on a completely arbitrary starting point.

    When asked to evaluate a true/false statement, a person has 3 options, not 2. True, False, and "I Don't Know". Asserting a true statement to be false is just as wrong as asserting a false statement to be true. If one lacks the information to evaluate the veracity of a statement, the correct default is to acknowledge one's ignorance, instead of making a false claim.

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann