The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence
Open accessOverview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Moreover, there is mixed research regarding whether corrections may actually increase belief in the original misinformation 121,124-126 or in other misleading claims that fail to get corrected 127 .”
From Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (2020) · cites this paper as [126]
In the citing paper
“This has brought researchers to conclude that negative influence effect is elusive, with limited relevance for politics outside the laboratory (88, 90, 93–95): while we may be less influenced by our political opponents, we are unlikely to be negatively influenced by them.”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [90]
Citations
Cites
The weirdest people in the world?
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0999152x · Cited by 12,641
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · cited 1×
“Developing counter-arguments would be unusually effortful, as sophisticated respondents can simply filter out, rather than counterargue, unwelcome facts (Zaller 1992).”
BackgroundThe Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
Kenski, H. C., & Zaller, J. R. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074664 · Cited by 5,150
Eulau, H. H. F. (1960) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1952653 · Cited by 4,744
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
WEIRD languages have misled us, too
Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2010) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1000018x · Cited by 4,177
Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.90.4.293 · Cited by 3,991
When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 · Cited by 3,173
Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365 · Cited by 1,300
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.
- Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental designs. New York: Wiley.
- Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
- Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Edelman, C., Passo, W., Banks, A., Boston, E., et al. (2015). Answering on cue?. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College.
- Prior, M. (2007). Is partisan bias in perceptions of objective conditions real? The effect of an accuracy incentive on the stated beliefs of partisans. In Annual conference of the Midwestern Political Science Association.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 901–906 of 906
Ein didaktisches Rahmenmodell zum schulischen Umgang mit Verschwörungsdenken
Drogan, T., & Grimm, M. (2026) · GWP – Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft, Politik · doi:10.3224/gwp.v75i3.12
Disinformation, Ideology, and Public Opinion in Central Europe
Hlatky, R. (2026) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009616935
Generative borders: Manipulated visuals, platform drift, and refugee-policy legitimacy
Tunçalp, D. (2026) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103579
Testing the backlash hypothesis in climate change messaging
Bayes, R. (2026) · Political Studies Review · doi:10.1177/14789299261491604
Citizens' perceptions of accountability in AI-based public sector decision making
Chen, T.-L., Gil-García, J., & Gascó-Hernández, M. (2026) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2026.102189
Velez, Y. R. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70206
Metadata
- Authors
- Wood, T., & Porter, E.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wood, Thomas
- Venue
- Political Behavior
- Published
- 2018-01-16
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 135-163
- ISSN
- 0190-9320 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6687
- OpenAlex
- W3126124149
- Cited by
- 904
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 127 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 146 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 31
- FWCI
- 138.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Political Behavior (publishedVersion)
- SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The Cato Institute (ID0EMTAG524)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- backfire effect, factual information, partisan attitudes, fact-checking, political polarization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
