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Unpublished "Ghost Paper"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 Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.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:
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