In an era dominated by the rapid circulation of information via digital channels, the challenge of discerning truth from falsehood has become increasingly complex. A recent groundbreaking study published in Nature Communications by Orchinik, Bhui, and Rand (2025) delves into the psychological mechanisms influencing how individuals morally condemn misinformation, specifically fake news, and investigates how repeated exposure affects these moral judgments. This research not only adds new layers to our understanding of fake news dynamics but also touches on the replicability and generalizability of a phenomenon critical for both social scientists and the public alike.
The phenomenon at the heart of this study is the so-called “repeated exposure effect,” a cognitive bias where merely encountering a statement multiple times increases an individual’s acceptance or agreement with it, irrespective of its truthfulness. Previous literature has shown that this effect significantly sways opinions and attitudes, but its interaction with moral judgment concerning misinformation remained relatively underexplored. Orchinik and colleagues embark on a rigorous journey to empirically test if repeated exposure also modulates the moral condemnation people feel when they identify news as fake.
What makes this study particularly compelling is its methodological rigor focused on replicability — a cornerstone of scientific integrity that ensures findings are not isolated artifacts but reliably observable across different contexts and populations. The researchers employed multi-wave experimental designs involving thousands of participants across cultures and demographic groups to examine if the repeated exposure effect consistently reduces the intensity of moral condemnation toward fake news.
The experiments reveal a nuanced but striking pattern: with greater repeated exposure to fake news headlines, participants’ moral outrage and condemnation diminished significantly. This attenuation suggests that repeated exposure can desensitize individuals to the perceived ethical breach of spreading or endorsing misinformation. The ethical implications are enormous, pointing to a tacit erosion of resistance to fake news as audiences become habituated.
Importantly, the study also tested these effects across a spectrum of fake news topics with varying emotional valence and perceived harm, ranging from politically charged misinformation to health myths. Findings demonstrated that while the repeated exposure effect was robust, the degree of moral condemnation was also dependent on the content domain — more harmful or personally relevant misinformation elicited stronger moral condemnation initially, but exposure effects eventually blunt these reactions as well.
This research offers critical insights into the intersection between cognitive psychology and moral psychology by showing that cognitive biases like the repeated exposure effect actively modulate deeply held moral judgments. Moral condemnation, a powerful social determent mechanism, becomes vulnerable to simple cognitive dynamics, which poses a challenge for information ecosystems striving to uphold truth and ethical standards.
Moreover, by investigating the generalizability of this effect beyond Western populations, the authors provide evidence that the reduced moral condemnation caused by repeated exposure is not culturally isolated. This cross-cultural applicability reinforces the universal psychological underpinning of the phenomenon and urges a global perspective when designing interventions against fake news proliferation.
A technical innovation in the study’s methodology is the implementation of high-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) combined with preregistration and open science practices. Such an approach ensures transparency and combats the replication crisis pervasive in social sciences. This transparency gives the findings greater credibility and invites future research to build upon or challenge the conclusions with robust foundations.
From a neuroscientific perspective, these results encourage further exploration into the neural correlates of exposure-driven changes in moral judgment. Regions involved in cognitive control, emotional response, and social cognition might dynamically interact to calibrate the intensity of condemnation as familiarity increases. Such work could ultimately inform cognitive-behavioral interventions aimed at mitigating the normalization of fake news.
The broader implications extend into policymaking and media literacy campaigns. Recognizing that repeated exposure dulls moral outrage, educational programs can be designed to interrupt this habituation loop. Campaigns might equip individuals with critical tools to resist cognitive biases even after multiple encounters with deceptive content, preserving the societal function of moral condemnation as a check against misinformation spread.
Technological platforms, too, face increasing pressure to integrate behavioral insights such as those produced by this study. Algorithms that amplify highly engaging yet false content inadvertently contribute to repeated exposure effects, fostering an environment where moral vigilance is eroded. Ethical design principles for content recommendation systems must balance user engagement with the psychological health of the information ecosystem.
The timing of this study is especially poignant amid ongoing debates about social media’s role in facilitating political polarization and public health misinformation. Understanding the mechanisms through which fake news becomes morally tolerated unlocks new venues for intervention. This work emphasizes that combating disinformation goes beyond fact-checking; it involves addressing foundational psychological processes that govern our social judgments.
Orchinik and colleagues’ research importantly distinguishes between cognitive belief updating and moral condemnation, highlighting that acceptance of a false statement and the ethical response to its spread are intertwined but distinct. This differentiation is central to designing nuanced strategies targeting both belief and behavioral responses to fake news.
As the digital landscape evolves, the dynamic interplay of exposure frequency and moral evaluation will only grow more relevant. Subsequent studies can examine longitudinal trajectories of habituation effects and investigate individual differences in susceptibility, possibly linked to personality, cognitive style, or ideological commitment.
This influential study ultimately calls attention to a hidden vulnerability in our cognitive architecture: the human tendency to grow apathetic or forgiving toward repeated deceit. It challenges researchers, educators, and technologists alike to grapple with how repeated exposure to falsehood reshapes moral landscapes and to devise solutions buttressed by rigorous empirical evidence.
In sum, Orchinik et al.’s contribution is a milestone in the psychology of misinformation. By demonstrating that the repeated exposure effect extends into the domain of moral condemnation and confirming its replicability and broad applicability, they illuminate a subtle, yet profound, influence shaping our collective response to fake news. This deeper understanding is critical in crafting robust defenses against the corrosive impacts of misinformation in democratic societies worldwide.
Subject of Research:
The psychological impact of repeated exposure on moral condemnation of fake news.
Article Title:
Replicability and generalizability of the repeated exposure effect on moral condemnation of fake news.
Article References:
Orchinik, R., Bhui, R. & Rand, D.G. Replicability and generalizability of the repeated exposure effect on moral condemnation of fake news. Nat Commun 16, 7206 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-62462-x
Image Credits: AI Generated
