• by dave.b , Max Kalehoff , October 5, 2007

Did you know that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the hijackers were Iraqi?

Of course, I'm joking. Saddam Hussein was not directly involved in planning the Sept 11, terrorist attacks, and most of the hijackers were not Iraqi. The problem with this counter of accurate information, however, is that denials and clarifications can actually contribute to the resilience of popular myths. This paradox is according to Shankar Vedantam at the Washington Post, who recently published a fascinating analysis of several recent psychological studies on falsehoods.

Here are highlights from his roundup:

What's Most Easily Recalled Is Perceived As True

Referencing a University of Michigan study, Vedantam notes that contrary to conventional wisdom that people accept information in a deliberate manner, the brain actually uses subconscious "rules of thumb" that can bias it into thinking that false information is true. In experiments probing the difference between believing falsehoods immediately and then days after receiving correct information, long-term memories prove the most susceptible to the bias of thinking that well-recalled false information is true. Moreover, Vedantam adds, the mind's bias affects many people "who want to believe the myth for their own reasons, or those who are only peripherally interested and are less likely to invest the time and effort needed to firmly grasp the facts."

The Mind Is Not Good At Remembering Sources

Vedantam highlights other research, including from Virginia Polytechnic Institute, showing that hearing the same thing over and over again from one source can have the same effect as hearing that thing from many different people. By extension, people are not good at remembering which information came from credible sources, or that information came from the same untrustworthy source over and over again.

Negations Disappear Over Time

Citing experiments at Hebrew University, Vedantam points out that a substantial number of people drop the "negation tag" of a denial over time -- ultimately enforcing association with what one was trying to dissociate with. This could explain why rumors or accusations continue to tarnish people or brands even after such rumors are proven false. Consider an exonerated man who always claimed he "did not rape," but forever is associated with rape anyway.

Conclusions For All Of Us In Marketing And Advertising

Aside from my foundational interest in these psychological phenomena of falsehoods, they have massive ramifications for marketing and advertising practitioners. For one, they are important mental principles to consider when strategizing communications and crafting messaging.

But they also force a question with ethical implications: Should we market and communicate to fellow humans as logical, intelligent beings, or as irrational and emotional mental sponges that often fail to grasp reality?

Without a doubt, we can spot everyday attempts to manipulate and play to these mental principles around falsehoods. We often encounter them in political messaging, or among sly public relations spokespeople, or in highly competitive advertising scenarios. They typically are rife with agendas and, successful or not, often have the unfortunate consequence of leaving people feeling disgruntled or manipulated.

To be sure, these principles are not absolute rules. If they were, our world would be overflowing with falsehoods. Rational and linear mental processing is prevalent.

Finally, I have to ask: Will the Internet, over time, have any bearing on how humans process falsehoods and counters of correct information? Surely, our irrational human tendencies will not disappear; they're part of our DNA and there's likely a good instinctual reason for them. But won't the Internet's driving transparency, perpetual record of sources, sophisticated systems of rating reputation, and easy access to information leave citizens less room to fall for falsehoods? Or does the information age only equal more information sources, ambiguity and confusion in which our mental biases toward falsehoods will live on? Which case is it not?