--- title: "Why repeated claims feel true: familiarity versus evidence | Len P. van der Hof" description: A repeated claim can feel true without gaining evidence. Learn why one voice can sound like many, then test three beliefs before your next meeting. image: "https://lenvanderhof.com/media/generated/blog-hero-familiar-vs-true-v1.17cdb4fda95f.wide.webp" --- [Founder Performance](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/category/founder-performance/) Research guide # Familiar vs true: why repeated claims feel right Three places you heard a claim may all lead back to one person. Trace the route before you count the sources. Len P. van der HofPublished 22 October 202614 min read Deeply worn steps show how often a route was walked, not where it leads. Direct answer A claim that feels true because you have heard it often has gained familiarity, not evidence. Repetition makes a statement easier to process and can raise perceived truth without adding independent support, and several retellings inside a company can trace back to one original observation. To check a familiar claim before acting on it, trace each echo to its origin, count only the independent sources you have actually inspected, and write down what would count against it. ## Key takeaways - Familiar describes your experience of processing a claim; true describes whether the claim matches reality. Repetition can raise the first without changing the second. - In six experiments on how people estimate the spread of opinion in a group, an opinion repeated by a single group member was taken to be more widely held, even when people were consciously aware that every statement came from one speaker. - Knowing a subject helps you reject fluent errors, but an implausible statement is not exempt: Fazio, Rand and Pennycook report that repetition increased perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. - Twenty mentions of one report are still one source. Trace every echo to its origin, then inspect what kind of evidence that origin holds and what it leaves open. - Before repeating a belief in a meeting, write where you first heard it, how many independent sources you have actually checked, and what finding would make you revise it. **A claim that feels true because you have heard it often has gained familiarity, not evidence.** Imagine a product lead opening a planning meeting with a sentence everyone in the room already recognises: “Trial users leave because setup takes too long.” You saw that diagnosis in Friday’s weekly note, in a strategy deck on Monday, and in a colleague’s recap this morning. By Tuesday afternoon it sounds like settled ground. Then someone asks what those three accounts are based on, and all three trace back to one support call with one customer, a week ago. The call is worth taking seriously. The three retellings add no new observation. *Familiar* describes your experience of a claim: how often it has crossed your desk and how smoothly your mind processes it. *True* describes whether the claim matches what actually happened. Repetition changes the first without settling the second. DimensionFamiliarTrueWhat it describesHow easily you recognise and process the statementWhether the statement matches realityWhat raises itRepeated exposure, clean phrasing, social echoing, arrival orderIndependent observations, sound methods, checks that could have failedWhat one source repeated 3 times doesIncreases ease of recognition and the sense of agreementLeaves you with the same single source you started withThe audit questionWhere did I hear this, and how often?What is the original receipt, and what does it actually establish? Keeping those two columns apart runs through the opening chapters of [The Evidence-Aware Life](https://lenvanderhof.com/books/the-evidence-aware-life/). The book’s name for the wider failure is *borrowed certainty*: confidence taken from a claim’s presentation or messenger without inspecting the support that would justify it. You do not need to distrust every familiar belief in your company. You do need a way to tell “I have heard this many times” apart from “someone checked this.” ## Why do repeated claims feel true? When you encounter a statement again, you read or hear it with less friction than the first time. Psychologists call that subjective ease *processing fluency*. In a [2009 review of fluency research](https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564), Adam Alter and Daniel Oppenheimer cover experimental manipulations of conceptual fluency (semantically primed material), perceptual fluency (visually clear text) and linguistic fluency (phonologically simple phrasing). Across those domains, people judge fluent statements to be more true than less fluent counterparts, and the authors describe ease of processing as a metacognitive cue in reasoning and social judgment. When the fluency comes from prior exposure, the resulting shift is called the *illusory truth effect*. A [2019 paper by Lisa Fazio, David Rand and Gordon Pennycook](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01651-4) states its finding in its title: *Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements*. As *The Evidence-Aware Life* summarises their preregistered experiment, repeated statements were more often judged true than new statements. Familiarity can therefore add to a claim’s appeal without adding an independent reason to believe it. The book is careful about the limit: repetition does not always defeat knowledge, and knowing a subject can help you reject a fluent error. The practical warning is narrower. Implausible claims are not exempt. A claim that sounded overstated when you first heard it in a hallway can sound more reasonable when it turns up again in a slide deck, though nothing new has been tested in between. Smooth delivery is a property of the presentation, not of the reasoning, a distinction explored further in [Evaluate the reasoning, not the fluency](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/evaluate-reasoning-not-fluency/). ## Can one voice really sound like a chorus? For estimates of **how widely an opinion is shared in a group**, yes. In a [2007 paper in the *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology*](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.821), Kimberlee Weaver, Stephen Garcia, Norbert Schwarz and Dale Miller report six experiments on how people estimate the distribution of opinions within their group. People tended to infer that a familiar opinion was a prevalent one, even when its familiarity came solely from the repeated expression of a single group member. Their abstract adds two details that matter for operators. The effect held even when people were consciously aware that the opinions came from one speaker. And it ran through how easily the opinion came to mind (opinion accessibility), not through a conscious inference about what the repetition meant. Knowing that you heard one voice did not, by itself, remove the sense of broader agreement. The abstract does not claim that one repetitive voice counts as much as several different people. It shows that repetition by one person was enough to make an opinion seem more widely held. Keep the scope of those experiments exact. Weaver and colleagues measured perceived prevalence of group opinions, not the factual truth of empirical claims or the quality of product decisions. Chapter 2 of *The Evidence-Aware Life* cites them for a narrower point and then names the related source-checking problem: when twenty accounts repeat one report, there are twenty encounters but still only one underlying report. The chapter’s practice asks whether an “everyone knows” is really convergence or **one source in twenty coats**. Chapter 6 (*The Filter-Bubble Escape*) gives the media version: three articles about a new study, where one quotes the press release, another quotes the first article, and the third interviews an author of the same study. Three accounts, one underlying study. Inside an organisation, the same pattern appears when a founder’s hunch, a single customer interview or one analyst’s note is quoted in a Slack thread, pasted into a strategy memo, and summarized by an internal AI assistant. If the assistant also attaches references, a [15-minute check for AI fake citations](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/ai-fake-citations-check/) will show whether those references exist and say what the summary claims, or whether a familiar sentence has been dressed in borrowed authority. ## How does a belief get installed before you test it? In chapter 1 of *The Evidence-Aware Life* (*The Belief Formation System*), the route from exposure to conviction is divided into three audit prompts: **intake, filter and install**. The book presents this as an authorial model for asking questions about your reading, not a validated account of every process in belief formation. - **Intake** is what reaches you: which sources, colleagues, search choices and recommendation systems put a claim in front of you, and whether you searched for an evaluation or accepted what was forwarded. - **Filter** is how you assess what arrives: whether you demanded a comparison group from the report you disliked while accepting testimonials from the article you favoured. - **Install** is the confidence you carry forward, and the audit asks which reasons you can actually produce for it when challenged. Ask what supports a belief and you may find a study, a reliable expert explanation, a record, or a result you observed. The book calls that an **earned belief**: the confidence points at something you inspected. You may instead find mostly repetition or social agreement, the pull of a claim that already fits what you think. The book calls that an **installed belief**. Neither answer finishes the audit. The study may be weak, and a trusted expert may have good reasons you have not yet seen. The point is to expose the next question. Chapter 1 illustrates the difference through Saskia, a composite junior policy analyst (an illustrative character from the book, not a real person). Her job this week is a two-page memo on whether her department should back a contested intervention. By Wednesday she has read three sources in order: a careful report against the intervention, a sharp article for it, and a long, fluent piece for it again. When she sits down to write, her draft argues for the intervention, and the sentences come easily. Before submitting the memo, Saskia audits her own certainty on one sheet: Source on Saskia’s deskWhat it actually offersWhat she still needs to checkEvaluation report (against)A comparison between places that used the intervention and places that did notWhether the groups were comparable before it beganCommentary article (for)An explanation of why the intervention might workWhether that mechanism produced the claimed outcomeLong feature (for)Accounts from people who liked the interventionWho was interviewed, who was missing, and whether the outcome was measured The table does not declare the report the winner. It shows why two favourable articles need not outweigh one opposing evaluation. When Saskia pushes on her certainty, she finds the fluent article she read last, a sense that the smart people she follows lean that way, and a quiet wish to hand her senior the answer he seemed to want. Her confidence had been set by arrival order and alignment. Seeing that does not prove the intervention fails; it names the checks she must run before her recommendation earns its tone. ## What turns an echo into actual support? When a familiar claim matters to a decision you are about to make, run three checks before you repeat it as fact. ### 1. Trace the origin Follow every mention back to the first observation, measurement or document where the claim entered the world. If Article B quotes Report A and Slide C quotes Article B, draw an arrow from B and C back to A and count Report A once. If nobody in the room knows where a number or diagnosis started, record the origin as **unknown**. An unknown origin is not proof that the claim is false; it is a label that stops you treating a rumour as a verified finding. ### 2. Name the rung on the Evidence Ladder Once you have the original source in front of you, name what kind of support it provides. Chapter 2 of *The Evidence-Aware Life* uses the **Evidence Ladder** to sort support into seven categories: 1. **Assertion:** someone stated it without supplying support. 2. **Anecdote:** one person or customer reported an experience. 3. **Authority:** a qualified person offered a judgment. 4. **Mechanism:** there is a plausible explanation for how the effect could work. 5. **Study:** a systematic investigation measured something relevant. 6. **Convergence:** several lines of relevant evidence support the conclusion, and the agreement survives checks for independence and method. 7. **Your own test:** a planned comparison in your own setting, with the outcome fixed in advance and a fair comparison. The order runs from bare assertion toward tested evidence, but the book treats the rungs as categories, not a scale of quality. A careful expert judgment can be more useful than a poor study, ten studies can repeat one design flaw, and a personal test does not automatically outrank stronger evidence from other people. Repetition often dresses a low rung as a high one: an assertion repeated in five meetings begins to sound like convergence, and a plausible mechanism (“users drop off *because* the form has six fields”) gets repeated as a measured cause. ### 3. Check independence, quality and relevance separately Even when you have multiple sources, counting only starts the audit: - **Independence:** Did two analysts run different models on the exact same event log? That can check the maths, but it is still one underlying dataset. - **Quality:** Did the study or dashboard use a definition that matches what you are trying to measure, with a real comparison rather than a hand-picked window? - **Relevance:** Does a finding from consumer mobile apps apply to your enterprise onboarding flow, or are you borrowing a result from a different world? For each original source you inspect, write the strongest single sentence that source can support on its own. Compare that sentence with the broader claim circulating in your team. The distance between the two sentences is the gap you need to manage. ## Worked example: the trial-setup diagnosis (hypothetical) Return to the product meeting from the opening paragraph. This case is hypothetical; no real company data or outcomes are reported here. A week ago, one trial user told a support engineer on a call that setting up the workspace took too much effort. The product lead summarized that call in Friday’s weekly note as: “Trial users leave because setup takes too long.” On Monday, the sentence was copied into the quarterly planning deck. On Tuesday morning, a teammate repeated it in a stand-up recap. By Tuesday afternoon, the team is debating a six-week rebuild of the setup flow. Before committing engineering time, the team maps what it actually holds: Item in the roomRung on the Evidence LadderWhat it supports on its ownWhat it leaves openSupport call, last weekAnecdote (1 user)One trial user found the workspace setup too much effortHow many other trial users hit the same friction, and whether they left because of itFriday weekly noteEcho of the support callA written record that the call happenedZero additional user observationsMonday planning deckEcho of the weekly noteThat the product lead considered the call worth flaggingWhether setup time explains overall trial churnTuesday stand-up recapEcho of the planning deckThat the sentence is now familiar to the whole teamAny comparison between users who finished setup and users who left Four appearances reduce to **one anecdote**. That anecdote is valuable: a customer took the time to describe a real frustration. What the team does not yet have is evidence that setup effort is the main driver of trial departures. Writing the gap down turns a vague debate into concrete checks: - **Check the funnel record:** Where in the trial do departing users actually stop? If most of them never open the setup screen, setup effort cannot explain their departure, though it could still block the smaller group that reaches that step. - **Check the exit conversations:** If the team contacts recent trial users who left, whom did they reach and whom did they miss? Five replies out of fifty departures can surface useful friction without measuring how common it is. - **Keep the meeting sentence exact:** Instead of “Trial users leave because setup takes too long,” the product lead writes: *“One user reported in a support call that setup took too much work; we have not yet checked whether setup effort explains our wider trial drop-off.”* The team can now match its action to its evidence. A small, reversible improvement to the step the customer described can ship this week. Six weeks of engineering on a rebuild cost far more if the diagnosis is wrong, so the team runs a two-day funnel and call-log check before locking the roadmap. ## What if you need to decide before you can verify it? Operators rarely have time to wait for a perfect study. Acting under uncertainty is normal; pretending that repetition has removed the uncertainty is the unforced error. Chapter 2 of *The Evidence-Aware Life* introduces the [LEVEL check](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/what-is-level/) (summarised on the [LEVEL framework page](https://lenvanderhof.com/frameworks/level/)), which ties the evidence you hold to the consequences of the decision: 1. **Locate:** name the claim in one sentence. If you cannot, you are grading packaging. 2. **Estimate:** set the bar by what being wrong costs, not by how badly you want the claim true. The book calls the cost of being wrong *the drop*; count the cost of waiting as well. 3. **Value:** name the rung the evidence actually sits on, after collapsing echoes to their origin, then check its quality, independence and relevance within that rung. 4. **Expose** the gap between the support you hold and what the decision requires. 5. **Lean:** choose a proportionate next step: a bounded action, the right help, or a justified deferral. When a claim will guide work over several weeks or quarters, record it as a single row in an [evidence ledger](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/what-is-an-evidence-ledger/): what was asserted, which source supports it, how strong that source is, and what would retire the claim. ## Try this today (15 minutes) Before your next planning or review meeting this week, pick **three beliefs you would repeat out loud without hesitation**. Write each belief as one checkable sentence, then fill in this four-line card (a shortened version of Artifact 2 in the practice kit of *The Evidence-Aware Life*): ``` 15-MINUTE FAMILIARITY AUDIT Date: __________ Belief 1 (one checkable sentence): ______________________________________________________________ Where I first heard it (or "I don't remember"): ______________________________________________________________ Independent primary sources I have actually inspected (0, 1, 2...): ______________________________________________________________ What finding would count against it: ______________________________________________________________ ``` Repeat the same four lines for Belief 2 and Belief 3, and apply three strict rules while you fill them in: 1. **Collapse echoes first.** If a slide deck, a newsletter and a colleague all point to the same underlying report or customer call, draw an arrow to that origin and count it once. 2. **Count only what you inspected.** If you saw a citation in a summary or heard a number in a meeting but never opened the underlying source yourself, your inspected count for that source is **0**. Write zero plainly; it is an honest starting point, not a failure. 3. **Name the rung, not just the count.** Three independent assertions or three vivid anecdotes are still assertions or anecdotes. Note what kind of support the origin actually provides. Pick the belief on your sheet that carries the highest stakes this week. Today, trace one echo all the way back to its primary source, narrow the sentence you will say in the meeting so it matches what was actually observed, or put one specific check on the agenda before the team commits. You may end the week with the same conclusion. You will know which part of your certainty was earned and which part was only familiar. Cite this:Familiar vs true: why repeated claims feel right.Len P. van der Hof. [https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/) · Published 22 October 2026. ## Terminology - [LEVEL](https://lenvanderhof.com/glossary/level/) ## Sources 1. [Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements (Fazio, Rand and Pennycook, 2019)](https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01651-4) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2. [Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus (Weaver, Garcia, Schwarz and Miller, 2007)](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.821) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3. [Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation (Alter and Oppenheimer, 2009)](https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564) · Personality and Social Psychology Review 4. [The Evidence-Aware Life](https://lenvanderhof.com/books/the-evidence-aware-life/) 5. [LEVEL framework](https://lenvanderhof.com/frameworks/level/) 6. [What is LEVEL? A five-step check before you act on a claim](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/what-is-level/) 7. [What is an evidence ledger?](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/what-is-an-evidence-ledger/) ## Further reading - [What is LEVEL? A five-step check before you act on a claim](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/what-is-level/) - [What is an evidence ledger?](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/what-is-an-evidence-ledger/) - [Evaluate the reasoning, not the fluency](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/evaluate-reasoning-not-fluency/) - [AI fake citations: a 15-minute check for the claims that matter](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/ai-fake-citations-check/) - [The Evidence-Aware Life](https://lenvanderhof.com/books/the-evidence-aware-life/) About the author ## [Len P. van der Hof](https://lenvanderhof.com/en/authors/len-p-van-der-hof/) Entrepreneur, AI Innovator and Venture Builder Len P. van der Hof builds practical AI systems, digital ventures and evidence-informed tools for founders. ```json { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@graph": [ { "@type": "Person", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person", "name": "Len P. van der Hof", "alternateName": [ "Len van der Hof", "L.P. van der Hof", "Leendert Pieter van der Hof" ], "honorificSuffix": "MSc", "url": "https://lenvanderhof.com/", "image": [ "https://lenvanderhof.com/photos/len-portrait-1.jpg", "https://lenvanderhof.com/photos/len-portrait-2.jpg", "https://lenvanderhof.com/photos/len-portrait-3.jpg", "https://lenvanderhof.com/photos/len-portrait-4.jpg", "https://lenvanderhof.com/photos/len-speaking.jpg", "https://lenvanderhof.com/photos/len-hero.jpg" ], "jobTitle": "Entrepreneur, AI Innovator and Venture Builder", "description": "Len P. van der Hof, MSc, is a Dutch entrepreneur and AI innovator in Zwijndrecht. He builds ReasonKit, MindSesh, Undominated.ai, books under his name, the fiction imprint LPH98.lifestyle, and technology ventures through LPH98.ventures. Eleven titles in Systems for the Strategic Self are available now, in English and Dutch.", "address": { "@type": "PostalAddress", "addressLocality": "Zwijndrecht", "addressCountry": "NL" }, "alumniOf": { "@type": "CollegeOrUniversity", "name": "Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University" }, "knowsAbout": [ "Artificial intelligence", "AI agents", "Agentic AI systems", "LLM routing", "SEO", "Generative engine optimization", "Answer engine optimization", "Venture building", "Founder performance", "Founder psychology", "Evidence-based decision-making" ], "sameAs": [ "https://www.linkedin.com/in/lenvanderhof/", "https://x.com/LenvanderHof", "https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTG20buKqYYbitqqf7l3zJA", "https://www.instagram.com/Lenvanderhof/", "https://www.threads.com/@lenvanderhof", "https://github.com/Lenvanderhof", "https://huggingface.co/LPH98", "https://www.npmjs.com/~lenvanderhof", "https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/70983905.Len_P_van_der_Hof", "https://www.amazon.com/author/lenvanderhof", "https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/b/len-p-van-der-hof-msc/609879394/", "https://bsky.app/profile/lenvanderhof.com", "https://mastodon.social/@Lenvanderhof", "https://crates.io/users/Lenvanderhof", "https://cursor.com/@Lenvanderhof", "https://medium.com/@Lenvanderhof", "https://gitlab.com/Lenvanderhof", "https://hub.docker.com/u/lenvanderhof/", "https://dev.to/lenvanderhof", "https://www.facebook.com/Lenvanderhof", "https://soundcloud.com/Lenvanderhof" ], "affiliation": [ { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#publisher" }, { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#mindsesh" }, { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#lifestyle" } ] }, { "@type": "WebSite", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#website", "url": "https://lenvanderhof.com/", "name": "Len P. van der Hof", "description": "Len P. van der Hof, MSc, is a Dutch entrepreneur and AI innovator in Zwijndrecht. He builds ReasonKit, MindSesh, Undominated.ai, books under his name, the fiction imprint LPH98.lifestyle, and technology ventures through LPH98.ventures. Eleven titles in Systems for the Strategic Self are available now, in English and Dutch.", "inLanguage": [ "en", "nl" ], "publisher": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" } }, { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#publisher", "name": "LPH98.ventures", "url": "https://lph98.ventures", "founder": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" } }, { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#mindsesh", "name": "MindSesh", "url": "https://mindsesh.net", "founder": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" } }, { "@type": "SoftwareApplication", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#reasonkit", "name": "ReasonKit", "url": "https://reasonkit.sh", "creator": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" } }, { "@type": "SoftwareApplication", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#undominated", "name": "Undominated.ai", "url": "https://undominated.ai", "creator": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" } }, { "@type": "Organization", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#lifestyle", "name": "LPH98.lifestyle", "url": "https://lph98.lifestyle", "founder": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" } }, { "@type": "ImageObject", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#primaryimage", "url": "https://lenvanderhof.com/media/generated/blog-hero-familiar-vs-true-v1.17cdb4fda95f.wide.webp", "contentUrl": "https://lenvanderhof.com/media/generated/blog-hero-familiar-vs-true-v1.17cdb4fda95f.wide.webp", "representativeOfPage": true }, { "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#breadcrumb", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Home", "item": "https://lenvanderhof.com/" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Blog", "item": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 3, "name": "Founder Performance", "item": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/category/founder-performance/" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 4, "name": "Familiar vs true: why repeated claims feel right", "item": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/" } ] }, { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#webpage", "url": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/", "name": "Familiar vs true: why repeated claims feel right", "description": "A repeated claim can feel true without gaining evidence. Learn why one voice can sound like many, then test three beliefs before your next meeting.", "isPartOf": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#website" }, "primaryImageOfPage": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#primaryimage" }, "breadcrumb": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#breadcrumb" }, "inLanguage": "en-GB" }, { "@type": "BlogPosting", "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#article", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/en/blog/familiar-vs-true/#webpage" }, "headline": "Familiar vs true: why repeated claims feel right", "description": "A repeated claim can feel true without gaining evidence. Learn why one voice can sound like many, then test three beliefs before your next meeting.", "datePublished": "2026-10-22T14:00:00.000Z", "author": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" }, "publisher": { "@id": "https://lenvanderhof.com/#person" }, "image": [ "https://lenvanderhof.com/media/generated/blog-hero-familiar-vs-true-v1.17cdb4fda95f.square.webp", "https://lenvanderhof.com/media/generated/blog-hero-familiar-vs-true-v1.17cdb4fda95f.landscape.webp", "https://lenvanderhof.com/media/generated/blog-hero-familiar-vs-true-v1.17cdb4fda95f.wide.webp" ], "articleSection": "Founder Performance", "inLanguage": "en-GB" } ] } ```