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

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Unpublished "Ghost Paper"
• PDF retrieved from the Wayback Machine (drive.google.com/file/d/1l80_5rPUhdSWsnurKc1Ai…)

Citations
• Nyhan B, Reifler J.When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9…). 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 Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.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 (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260…). 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 (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26173286). 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 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5547702). 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 (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-019-0…). Cognitive Processing. 2019;20:325–31.
• Wood T, Porter E.The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9…). 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 (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-019-0…). Political Behavior. 2020;42:939–60.
• Ecker UKH, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S.Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction? (sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368…) 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 (psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/xlm0000422). 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 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7004143). 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 (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10096191). PLOS ONE. 2023;18:e0281140.
• Cook J, Lewandowsky S.The Debunking Handbook (sks.to/debunk). University of Queensland. 2011.
• Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH, et al.The Debunking Handbook 2020 (climatecommunication.gmu.edu/wp-content/upload…). Available at sks.to/db2020.
• Swire‑Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D.Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781). 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 (online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0033-demys…)
• Clinical Trials: Design, Strategy, and Analysis (online.stanford.edu/courses/som-xche0030-clini…)
• Medical Statistics Certificate Program (online.stanford.edu/programs/medical-statistic…)
• Writing in the Sciences (coursera.org/learn/sciwrite)
• Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program (online.stanford.edu/programs/epidemiology-and-…)

Programs that we teach in:
• Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program (online.stanford.edu/programs/epidemiology-and-…)

Find us on:
Kristin - LinkedIn (linkedin.com/in/kristin-sainani-642b5914) &Twitter/X (x.com/KristinSainani)
Regina -LinkedIn (linkedin.com/in/reginanuzzo) &ReginaNuzzo.com (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