Believing what we read

For hundreds of years, there was a debate as to whether belief of something is immediate or if it comes later, after processing the information. Members of the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas performed an experiment where they tried to figure this out. The experiments had to do with reading about two robberies and making judgments as to how long the robber was in jail. There were statements in the stories that were false, and the readers were told to ignore the statements in red type, because they were the false ones. Half of the participants were distracted while reading the stories, and wouldn't have as much time to realized that the statement was written in red ink (the rest of the story being written in green). The findings of the experiment was that those were were distracted didn't process the fact that the statements were in red.

Long story short, it proved that as human beings, we accept things to be true then start to process to see if it really is true. Basically, believe first, ask questions later. I think that we would like to think that we process then make decisions as human beings, but this proves that we don't. I find this to be true in my life, I hear a story, or an opinion of something (I'm referencing politics), and it's usually when I am repeating it later to someone else, that I reflect and start to doubt it's truthfulness. The biggest thing that comes to my mind to do with these findings is, juries in court cases. Does it matter which side of the case presents first? Are people more likely to believe the person who goes first?