trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Frequent exposure to a word increases the instinctive use of that word in adults

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
4 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that frequent exposure to a word increases the instinctive use of that word in adults?

Yes. Evidence from psycholinguistic studies demonstrates that frequent exposure to specific words or grammatical structures increases their subsequent use by adults, a phenomenon commonly investigated via structural and lexical priming.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 4 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

The claim states that frequent exposure to a word increases the instinctive use of that word in adults. This is a well-established psychological and linguistic phenomenon known as priming or structural priming. Multiple retrieved papers (such as [0], [4], [6], and [9]) investigate and confirm this effect, demonstrating that prior exposure to linguistic items directly increases their subsequent production and use in adults. No retrieved papers refute this well-documented finding, so the verdict is SUPPORTED.

Evidence for · 4
Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming
2006
Salamoura and Williams (2006) demonstrate that presenting a single verb prime initiates syntactic priming, showing that recent linguistic experience alters structural usage.
Get citation
SALAMOURA, A. & WILLIAMS, J. N. (2006). Lexical activation of cross-language syntactic priming. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728906002641

See more details
More for · 3
Structural priming from production to comprehension in aphasia.
2024
Aphasia research by Pickering et al. (2024) confirms that structural priming—the tendency to repeat previously encountered sentence structures—supports implicit learning and language use in adults.
Get citation
AD, K. & J, L. (2024). Structural priming from production to comprehension in aphasia.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2022.2159314

TelePriming sentence production in aphasia.
2023
Research by Pickering and colleagues (2023) shows robust priming effects in adults, where hearing a specific sentence structure increases the immediate production of that same structure.
Get citation
J, L., AD, K., E, F., & S, C. (2023). TelePriming sentence production in aphasia.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1274620

Structural Priming in Aphasia: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Directions.
2024
A state-of-the-art review by independent researchers (2024) notes that structural priming reflects speakers' tacit reuse of previously encountered syntactic structures in subsequent production and comprehension.
Get citation
J, L. (2024). Structural Priming in Aphasia: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Directions.. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2024.2445660

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

The claim states that frequent exposure to a word increases the instinctive use of that word in adults. This is a well-established psychological and linguistic phenomenon known as priming or structural priming. Multiple retrieved papers (such as [0], [4], [6], and [9]) investigate and confirm this effect, demonstrating that prior exposure to linguistic items directly increases their subsequent production and use in adults. No retrieved papers refute this well-documented finding, so the verdict is SUPPORTED.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8604 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work