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Unpublished "Ghost Paper"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

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 Unpublished manuscript, PDF posted separately.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:

• Epidemiology and Clinical Research Graduate Certificate Program 

Find us on:

Kristin -  LinkedIn & Twitter/X

Regina - LinkedIn & ReginaNuzzo.com

• (00:00) -