Listen to the episode on your favorite platforms:
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Unpublished "Ghost Paper"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;3–330.
- 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 Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.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;7–61.
- Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, et al. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2012;6–131.
- 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;5–31.
- Wood T, Porter E. The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior. 2019;5–63.
- 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;9–60.
- 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;5–92.
- Swire B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017;48–61.
- 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;1–54.
- 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;6–99.
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
- () -
- () - Intro
- () - What is the backfire effect?
- () - The 2010 paper that panicked fact-checkers
- () - The ghost paper what it really said
- () - Study design of the 2010 paper
- () - Results of the 2010 paper
- () - Crossover interactions, regression models, and intimate talk
- () - Missing data and cleaning your bedroom analogy
- () - Fact-checking the fact-checking paper
- () - Replication and pushing the data to the limit
- () - The purported backfire effect spreads
- () - The 2017 paper that got a lot of attention
- () - Statistical sleuthing the 2017 paper
- () - Will researchers double down on their earlier conclusions?
- () - A review paper sums it all up
- () - Wrap up, rating, and methodological morals
Smart linkhttps://pc.st/e/2oTnkN7vhd0
Official sitehttps://www.normalcurves.com/
Auto-openhttps://pc.st/e/2oTnkN7vhd0?a
Add podcast to the siteEmbed Podcast