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<ul><li>Computational replication</li><li>Replication</li><li>Block randomization</li><li>Problems in randomization</li><li>Bad citing</li><li>Interactions in regression</li></ul>Unpublished "Ghost Paper"<ul><li><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l80_5rPUhdSWsnurKc1AiUh3MK3gf1vN/view?usp=sharing">PDF retrieved from the Wayback Machine</a></li></ul>Citations<ul><li>Nyhan B, Reifler J.<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2"> When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions</a>. Political Behavior. 2010;32:303–330.</li><li>Skurnik I, Yoon C, Schwarz N. “Myths & Facts” about the flu: Health education campaigns can reduce vaccination intentions. Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.</li><li>Schwarz N, Sanna LJ, Skurnik I, et al.<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S006526010639003X"> Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns</a>. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2007;39:127–61.</li><li>Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, et al. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26173286/">Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing</a>. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012;13:106–131.</li><li>Pluviano S, Watt C, Della Sala S. <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5547702/">Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies</a>. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0181640.</li><li>Pluviano S, Watt C, Ragazzini G, et al.<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-019-00919-w"> Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro‑vaccine campaigns</a>. Cognitive Processing. 2019;20:325–31.</li><li>Wood T, Porter E.<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y"> The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence</a>. Political Behavior. 2019;41:135–63.</li><li>Nyhan B, Porter E, Reifler J, Wood TJ.<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x"> Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability</a>. Political Behavior. 2020;42:939–60.</li><li>Ecker UKH, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S.<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368116301838"> Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction?</a> Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2017;6:185–92.</li><li>Swire B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S.<a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xlm0000422"> The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information</a>. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017;43:1948–61.</li><li>Ecker UKH, O’Donnell M, Ang LC, et al. <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7004143/">The effectiveness of short- and long-format retractions on misinformation belief and recall</a>. British Journal of Psychology. 2020;111:36–54.</li><li>Ecker UKH, Sharkey CXM, Swire-Thompson B. <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10096191/">Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects</a>. PLOS ONE. 2023;18:e0281140.</li><li>Cook J, Lewandowsky S.<a href="http://sks.to/debunk"> The Debunking Handbook</a>. University of Queensland. 2011.</li><li>Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH, et al.<a href="https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DebunkingHandbook2020.pdf"> The Debunking Handbook 2020</a>. Available at https://sks.to/db2020. </li><li>Swire‑Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D.<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/"> Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations</a>. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. 2020;9:286–99.</li></ul>Kristin and Regina’s online courses: <ul><li><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0033-demystifying-data-modern-approach-statistical-understanding">Demystifying Data: A Modern Approach to Statistical Understanding</a>  </li><li><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0030-clinical-trials-design-strategy-and-analysis">Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis</a> </li><li><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/programs/medical-statistics-program">Medical Statistics Certificate Program</a>  </li><li><a href="https://www.coursera.org/learn/sciwrite">Writing in the Sciences</a> </li><li><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/programs/epidemiology-and-clinical-research-graduate-certificate">Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program</a> </li></ul>Programs that we teach in:<ul><li><a href="https://online.stanford.edu/programs/epidemiology-and-clinical-research-graduate-certificate">Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program</a> </li></ul>Find us on:Kristin - <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/kristin-sainani-642b5914/"> LinkedIn</a> &<a href="https://x.com/KristinSainani"> Twitter/X</a>Regina -<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/reginanuzzo/"> LinkedIn</a> &<a href="https://www.reginanuzzo.com/"> ReginaNuzzo.com</a><ul><li>(00:00) - </li>
<li>(00:00) - Intro
</li>
<li>(02:05) - What is the backfire effect?
</li>
<li>(03:55) - The 2010 paper that panicked fact-checkers
</li>
<li>(06:25) - The ghost paper what it really said
</li>
<li>(12:35) - Study design of the 2010 paper
</li>
<li>(18:25) - Results of the 2010 paper
</li>
<li>(19:55) - Crossover interactions, regression models, and intimate talk
</li>
<li>(25:24) - Missing data and cleaning your bedroom analogy
</li>
<li>(28:11) - Fact-checking the fact-checking paper
</li>
<li>(33:07) - Replication and pushing the data to the limit
</li>
<li>(36:59) - The purported backfire effect spreads
</li>
<li>(41:06) - The 2017 paper that got a lot of attention
</li>
<li>(44:25) - Statistical sleuthing the 2017 paper
</li>
<li>(48:51) - Will researchers double down on their earlier conclusions?
</li>
<li>(54:46) - A review paper sums it all up
</li>
<li>(56:00) - Wrap up, rating, and methodological morals</li>
</ul>

Podurama

Home

Trending

Personal

Your Podcasts

New Episodes

My Files

Favourite Episodes

Tags (Folders)

Recently Played

Bookmarks

Followed Playlists

The Backfire Effect: Can fact-checking make false beliefs stronger?

Normal Curves: Sexy Science, Serious Statistics

AI Chapters

AI Insights

Reviews