Go offline with the Player FM app!
The Backfire Effect: Can fact-checking make false beliefs stronger?
Manage episode 497001809 series 3646567
Can correcting misinformation make it worse? The “backfire effect” claims that debunking myths can actually make false beliefs stronger. We dig into the evidence — from ghost studies to headline-making experiments — to see if this psychological plot twist really holds up. Along the way, we unpack interaction effects, randomization red flags, and what happens when bad citations take on a life of their own. Plus: dirty talk analogies, statistical sleuthing, and why “familiarity” might be your brain’s sneakiest trick.
Statistical topics
- Computational replication
- Replication
- Block randomization
- Problems in randomization
- Bad citing
- Interactions in regression
Unpublished "Ghost Paper"
Citations
- Nyhan B, Reifler J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2010;32:303–330.
- Skurnik I, Yoon C, Schwarz N. “Myths & Facts” about the flu: Health education campaigns can reduce vaccination intentions. Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.
- Schwarz N, Sanna LJ, Skurnik I, et al. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;39:127–61.
- Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, et al. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012;13:106–131.
- Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Sala S. Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0181640.
- Pluviano S, Watt C, Ragazzini G, et al. Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro‑vaccine campaigns. Cognitive Processing. 2019;20:325–31.
- Wood T, Porter E. The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. 2019;41:135–63.
- Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood TJ. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior. 2020;42:939–60.
- Ecker UKH, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017;6:185–92.
- Swire B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017;43:1948–61.
- Ecker UKH, O’Donnell M, Ang LC, et al. The effectiveness of short- and long-format retractions on misinformation belief and recall. British Journal of Psychology. 2020;111:36–54.
- Ecker UKH, Sharkey CXM, Swire-Thompson B. Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects. PLOS ONE. 2023;18:e0281140.
- Cook J, Lewandowsky S. The Debunking Handbook. University of Queensland. 2011.
- Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH, et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://sks.to/db2020.
- Swire‑Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020;9:286–99.
Kristin and Regina’s online courses:
- Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding
- Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis
- Medical Statistics Certificate Program
- Writing in the Sciences
- Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program
Programs that we teach in:
Find us on:
Kristin - LinkedIn & Twitter/X
Regina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com
- (00:00) -
- (00:00) - Intro
- (02:05) - What is the backfire effect?
- (03:55) - The 2010 paper that panicked fact-checkers
- (06:25) - The ghost paper what it really said
- (12:35) - Study design of the 2010 paper
- (18:25) - Results of the 2010 paper
- (19:55) - Crossover interactions, regression models, and intimate talk
- (25:24) - Missing data and cleaning your bedroom analogy
- (28:11) - Fact-checking the fact-checking paper
- (33:07) - Replication and pushing the data to the limit
- (36:59) - The purported backfire effect spreads
- (41:06) - The 2017 paper that got a lot of attention
- (44:25) - Statistical sleuthing the 2017 paper
- (48:51) - Will researchers double down on their earlier conclusions?
- (54:46) - A review paper sums it all up
- (56:00) - Wrap up, rating, and methodological morals
14 episodes
Manage episode 497001809 series 3646567
Can correcting misinformation make it worse? The “backfire effect” claims that debunking myths can actually make false beliefs stronger. We dig into the evidence — from ghost studies to headline-making experiments — to see if this psychological plot twist really holds up. Along the way, we unpack interaction effects, randomization red flags, and what happens when bad citations take on a life of their own. Plus: dirty talk analogies, statistical sleuthing, and why “familiarity” might be your brain’s sneakiest trick.
Statistical topics
- Computational replication
- Replication
- Block randomization
- Problems in randomization
- Bad citing
- Interactions in regression
Unpublished "Ghost Paper"
Citations
- Nyhan B, Reifler J. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. 2010;32:303–330.
- Skurnik I, Yoon C, Schwarz N. “Myths & Facts” about the flu: Health education campaigns can reduce vaccination intentions. Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.
- Schwarz N, Sanna LJ, Skurnik I, et al. Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;39:127–61.
- Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, et al. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012;13:106–131.
- Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Sala S. Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0181640.
- Pluviano S, Watt C, Ragazzini G, et al. Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro‑vaccine campaigns. Cognitive Processing. 2019;20:325–31.
- Wood T, Porter E. The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. 2019;41:135–63.
- Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood TJ. Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior. 2020;42:939–60.
- Ecker UKH, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017;6:185–92.
- Swire B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017;43:1948–61.
- Ecker UKH, O’Donnell M, Ang LC, et al. The effectiveness of short- and long-format retractions on misinformation belief and recall. British Journal of Psychology. 2020;111:36–54.
- Ecker UKH, Sharkey CXM, Swire-Thompson B. Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects. PLOS ONE. 2023;18:e0281140.
- Cook J, Lewandowsky S. The Debunking Handbook. University of Queensland. 2011.
- Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH, et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://sks.to/db2020.
- Swire‑Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020;9:286–99.
Kristin and Regina’s online courses:
- Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding
- Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis
- Medical Statistics Certificate Program
- Writing in the Sciences
- Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program
Programs that we teach in:
Find us on:
Kristin - LinkedIn & Twitter/X
Regina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com
- (00:00) -
- (00:00) - Intro
- (02:05) - What is the backfire effect?
- (03:55) - The 2010 paper that panicked fact-checkers
- (06:25) - The ghost paper what it really said
- (12:35) - Study design of the 2010 paper
- (18:25) - Results of the 2010 paper
- (19:55) - Crossover interactions, regression models, and intimate talk
- (25:24) - Missing data and cleaning your bedroom analogy
- (28:11) - Fact-checking the fact-checking paper
- (33:07) - Replication and pushing the data to the limit
- (36:59) - The purported backfire effect spreads
- (41:06) - The 2017 paper that got a lot of attention
- (44:25) - Statistical sleuthing the 2017 paper
- (48:51) - Will researchers double down on their earlier conclusions?
- (54:46) - A review paper sums it all up
- (56:00) - Wrap up, rating, and methodological morals
14 episodes
All episodes
×Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.