Undisclosed, S2, E1: The Illusion of Truth Effect & The Rule Against Hearsay

Last night, we premiered the first episode of the Second Season of Undisclosed: “The Panama City Incident.” In the episode, we talked about the illusion of truth effect and how it led the residents of Rome, Georgia to believe that Joey Watkins had shot at Isaac Dawkins in July 1999. According to Wikipedia, the illusion of truth (or illusory truth effect is)

the tendency to believe information to be correct because we are exposed to it more often. It was first discovered in 1977 at Villanova University and Temple University. We see some misconceptions or exaggerations frequently in our daily lives, and thus have a tendency to believe them to be true because of our recurrent exposure.

This effect has an important relationship to the rule against hearsay.

The rule against hearsay generally prevents the admission of out-of-court statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Part of this can be explained through the childhood game of telephone: If William testifies that Ed said, “I saw Dan shoot Vince at the corner of State and Main at 7:00 P.M. last Thursday,” William’s testimony could be an accurate recounting of Ed’s statement. Or maybe Dan said “State and Wayne.” Or maybe he said, “last Tuesday.” Or maybe he said, “7:00 A.M.”

The rule against hearsay can also be seen as a rule against bolstering. If Vince testifies that Dan punched him at a bar, the rule against hearsay would generally prevent other people from testifying that Vince told them a similar story. The illusion of truth effect explains why. Even if Dan could present evidence that he wasn’t at the bar at the time in question, the jury might have a difficult time disregarding the testimony of several witnesses that Dan had punched Vince.

In State v. Sandoval, 409 S.W.3d 259 (Tex.App. 2013), Felix Sandoval was charged with sexual assault of a child based upon acts he allegedly committed against C.E. At trial, C.E. testified against Sandoval C.E.

bolstered by the repetition of her hearsay statements through Officer Preston’s testimony, her cousin’s testimony, her mother’s written statement, and her own written statement. Moreover, during deliberations the jury asked the court for copies of the written statements of C.E. and her mother, as well as a copy of the police report.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas found that this hearsay statements were improperly admitted. In finding prejudice and reversing for a new trial, the court then concluded that

Repetition is an effective method of persuasion. Experimental psychologists have found that after hearing a plausible statement repeated, the listener becomes more confident that the statement is true, whether or not it actually is. See, e.g., Wesley G. Moons, Diane M. Mackie & Teresa Garcia–Marques, The Impact of Repetition–Induced Familiarity on Agreement With Weak and Strong Arguments, 96 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL., 32, 42–44 (2009); Kimberlee Weaver, Stephen M. Garcia, Norbert Schwarz & Dale T. Miller, Inferring the Popularity of an Opinion From Its Familiarity: A Repetitive Voice Can Sound Like a Chorus, 92 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 821, 832 (2007); Ian Maynard Begg, Ann Anas & Suzanne Farinacci, Dissociation of Processes in Belief: Source Recollection, Statement Familiarity, and the Illusion of Truth, 121 J. EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOL.: GEN. 446, 446 (1992); Lynn Hasher, David Goldstein & Thomas Toppino, Frequency and the Conference of Referential Validity, 16 J. VERBAL LEARNING & VERBAL BEHAV. 107 (1977).

-CM