Repeatedly encountered descriptions of wrongdoing seem more true but less unethical: Evidence in a naturalistic setting

Pillai, R M, Fazio, L K and Effron, D (2023) Repeatedly encountered descriptions of wrongdoing seem more true but less unethical: Evidence in a naturalistic setting. Psychological Science, 34 (8). pp. 863-874. ISSN 0956-7976

Abstract

When news about moral transgressions “goes viral,” the same person may repeatedly encounter identical reports about a wrongdoing. In a longitudinal experiment (N = 607 US-based
MTurkers), we show that these repeated encounters can affect moral judgments. As participants went about their lives, we text-messaged them news headlines describing corporate wrongdoings
(e.g., a cosmetics company harming animals). After 15 days, they rated these wrongdoings as less unethical than new wrongdoings. Extending prior laboratory research, these findings reveal
that repetition can have a lasting effect on moral judgments in naturalistic settings, that affect plays a key role, and that increasing the number of repetitions generally makes moral judgments
more lenient. Repetition also made fictitious descriptions of wrongdoing seem truer, connecting this moral repetition effect with past work on the illusory truth effect. The more times we hear
about a wrongdoing, the more we may believe it – but the less we may care.