SynthesisNature communications2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for an illusory truth effect and its determinants.
Synthesis in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence for an illusory truth effect and its determinants.Nature communications · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the last four decades, studies provided evidence that individuals tend to rate statements as being more truthful when they are re-exposed to them, the so-called 'illusory truth effect'. In light of a growing number of studies published since the previous meta-analysis in 2006 and concern of publishing biases, we conduct a meta-analysis on 182 studies and 366 effect sizes (N = 31,184 participants) published from 1977 to 2025. After correcting for small-study effects, we observe a small illusory truth effect (g = 0.37, 95% confidence interval [0.30, 0.44]), with a substantial within and between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show that multiple variables accounted for such heterogeneity, including the type of item, the instructions during the first exposure, the presence of veracity cues, and the duration of presentation on first exposure to the statement. We highlight the importance of the initial exposure and discuss practical implications regarding the current misinformation crisis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.