The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not): The Backfire Effect in the Context of Journalistic Coverage and Immediate Judgments as Prevention Strategy
Open accessAbstract
When reporting scientific information, journalists often present common myths that are refuted with scientific facts. However, correcting misinformation this way is often not only ineffective but can increase the likelihood that people misremember it as true. We test this backfire effect in the context of journalistic coverage and examine how to counteract it. In a web-based experiment, we find evidence for a systematic backfire effect that occurs after a few minutes and strengthens after five days. Results show that forming judgments immediately during reception (in contrast to memory-based) can reduce backfire effects and prevent erroneous memory from affecting participants’ attitudes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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
“However, repeating myths might contribute to increasing their acceptance due to their perceived familiarity [22, 23, 24].”
From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“Familiarity appears as a key determinant of this effect; indeed, when something seems familiar is easier to process and one is more inclined to believe it [24], regardless of whether the statement is factually true or false [22, 47] or was initially rated as credible or questionable [48].”
From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I. (1985) · Action Control · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 · Cited by 19,057
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · cited 1×
“This can result in different attitudes on the same issue at different points in time since memorybased judgments are prone to recency, availability, and salience effects (Hastie & Park, 1986; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).”
BackgroundApplied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Kemp, F. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.1046/j.1467-9884.2003.t01-2-00383_4.x · Cited by 9,294
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60214-2 · Cited by 8,822 · cited 1×
“In this context, researchers have developed different models to describe two modes of cognitive processing and decision making (e.g., Chaiken, 1980; Kahneman & Frederick, 2002; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), which are commonly labeled as dual process theories (Evans, 2008).”
Method(1999) · Cited by 6,104
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
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
Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience?
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3 · Cited by 3,149
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence.
Mandler, G. (1980) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.252 · Cited by 2,847
Foundations of Information Integration Theory
Carroll, J. S., & Anderson, N. H. (1982) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422202 · Cited by 2,105
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265 · Cited by 1,970 · cited 2×
“The familiarity hypothesis is based on two mechanisms following each other: In a first step, every contact with a stimulus increases its processing fluency, which means it can be processed more easily after the first reception (Bornstein, 1989; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004; Reber, Winkielman, & Schwarz, 1998).”
BackgroundEffects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00008 · Cited by 1,390
Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00033 · Cited by 1,167
Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.3.258 · Cited by 1,109
Kata, A. (2012) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112 · Cited by 1,094
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1989) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.1.58 · Cited by 943
Frequency and the conference of referential validity
Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(77)80012-1 · Cited by 920
Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth
Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1006/ccog.1999.0386 · Cited by 843
Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.4.446 · Cited by 650
The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect
Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868309352251 · Cited by 592
Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences
Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420 · Cited by 560
How warnings about false claims become recommendations
Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/426605 · Cited by 446
Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)39003-x · Cited by 441
Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth.
Unkelbach, C. (2007) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.219 · Cited by 380
Credibility of repeated statements: Memory for trivia.
Bacon, F. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Learning & Memory · doi:10.1037//0278-7393.5.3.241 · Cited by 312
The Learned Interpretation of Cognitive Fluency
Unkelbach, C. (2006) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01708.x · Cited by 248
The generality of the relation between familiarity and judged validity
Arkes, H. R., Hackett, C., & Boehm, L. (1989) · Journal of Behavioral Decision Making · doi:10.1002/bdm.3960020203 · Cited by 229
Editing episodic memory following the identification of error
Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/02724988843000168 · Cited by 217
Helpful or Harmful? How Frequent Repetition Affects Perceived Statement Credibility
Koch, T., & Zerback, T. (2013) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/jcom.12063 · Cited by 186
Determinants of judged validity
Arkes, H. R., Boehm, L. E., & Xu, G. (1991) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(91)90026-3 · Cited by 163
On believing what we remember.
Begg, I., Armour, V., & Kerr, T. (1985) · Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · doi:10.1037/h0080140 · Cited by 147
Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength
Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.002 · Cited by 132
Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth
Hilbig, B. E. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.012 · Cited by 117
The Validity Effect: A Search for Mediating Variables
Boehm, L. E. (1994) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167294203006 · Cited by 116
Fluency, familiarity, aging, and the illusion of truth
Parks, C. M., & Toth, J. P. (2006) · Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition · doi:10.1080/138255890968691 · Cited by 109
Repetition and Rated Truth Value of Statements
Schwartz, M. (1982) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422132 · Cited by 104
External validity of laboratory experiments: the frequency-validity relationship
Gigerenzer, G. (1984) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1422594 · Cited by 98
Mackie, D. M., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.1.5 · Cited by 95
On-Line Versus Memory-Based Processing: The Role of “Need to Evaluate” in Person Perception
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2001) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672012712004 · Cited by 92
Perceived Source Variability Versus Familiarity: Testing Competing Explanations for the Truth Effect
Roggeveen, A. L., & Johar, G. V. (2002) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1202_02 · Cited by 67
Mackie, D. M., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.5 · Cited by 64
Fluency and positivity as possible causes of the truth effect
Unkelbach, C., Bayer, M., Alves, H., Koch, A. S., & Stahl, C. (2010) · Consciousness and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.015 · Cited by 51
Good Things Don’t Come Easy (to Mind)
Hilbig, B. E. (2011) · Experimental Psychology (formerly Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie) · doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000124 · Cited by 30
Matthes, J., Wirth, W., & Schemer, C. (2007) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edm001 · Cited by 17
Koch, T., Peter, C., & Obermaier, M. (2013) · Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft · doi:10.5771/1615-634x-2013-4-551 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- 10.1037/0278-7393.5.3.241 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.446 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.572 · DOI
- Fishbein M., 2005, The handbook of attitudes, 173
- Hargreaves I., 2003, Towards a better map: Science, the public and the media
- Lavine H., 2002, Political psychology, 225
- Leiner D., 2012, Poster presented at the General Online Research Conference
- Leiner D. (2014). Convenience samples from online respondent pools: A case study of the SoSci Panel (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259669050_Convenience_Samples_from_Online_Respondent_Pools_A_case_study_of_the_SoSci_Panel
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social Media, Echo Chambers, and Political Polarization
Barberá, P. (2020) · Social Media and Democracy · doi:10.1017/9781108890960.004 · Cited by 373
Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.
Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006 · Cited by 360
The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information.
Swire‐Thompson, B., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xlm0000422 · Cited by 315
Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?
Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014 · Cited by 276
Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies
Pluviano, S., Watt, C., & Della Sala, S. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0181640 · Cited by 273
Metadata
- Authors
- Peter, C., & Koch, T.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Peter, Christina
- Venue
- Science Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-10-25
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-25
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-5470
- 1552-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2341285149
- Cited by
- 124
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Science Communication (publishedVersion)
- Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- backfire effect, debunking, scientific myths, misinformation, journalistic coverage, memory distortion, attitude change, misinformation correction
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
