PsychologicalDUAL-USE

Backfire Effect

What it is

The claim that correcting a false belief makes believers hold it more strongly — a finding that largely failed to replicate, and whose persistence as a myth is now used to argue that correction is futile or insulting.

How it works

Nyhan and Reifler reported in 2010 that corrections of political misperceptions — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that tax cuts raise revenue — sometimes strengthened the misperception among the partisans most motivated to hold it. The finding was intuitive, widely reported, and became a reason to give up on fact-checking. It has not held up. Wood and Porter tested corrections on 52 contested issues with more than 10,000 participants and found backfire on none: people across the spectrum moved toward the correction, if only partway, even on identity-charged claims. Chan and colleagues' 2017 meta-analysis found debunking effective overall; Swire-Thompson, DeGutis and Lazer showed in 2020 that the few reported backfires cluster in small samples and unreliable measures; and Nyhan himself wrote in 2021 that backfire does not explain why misperceptions persist. What does persist is the continued influence effect: a corrected claim keeps shaping inferences unless the correction supplies an alternative account. The persuasion use of the backfire effect is therefore mostly a use of the myth. Persuaders who benefit from uncorrected claims cite it to argue that correction is futile or insulting; the honest conclusion is the opposite, that corrections work modestly and should be made.

Real-world examples

  • •Nyhan and Reifler's 2010 experiments found that a correction to the claim that Iraq had WMD before the 2003 invasion increased belief among some conservative participants, while a correction about stem-cell research produced no backfire among liberals; the asymmetric result was part of why the paper travelled.
  • •Wood and Porter's replication programme presented corrections on issues from gun control to immigration to voter fraud to more than 10,000 people and found respondents updated toward the correct facts on every one, with no backfire in any condition.
  • •The Debunking Handbook 2020, written by a team of misinformation researchers, retired the earlier advice to avoid repeating a myth for fear of backfire and recommends leading with the fact, stating the myth once with a warning, explaining the fallacy, and restating the fact.
  • •Newsroom guidance and advice columns on talking to relatives in the mid-2010s cited the backfire effect as a reason not to correct, and partisan outlets cited the same finding to argue that fact-checking was a form of attack on their audiences.

Ethical guidelines

Where the line is

Framing a correction so that it respects the listener's identity and supplies an alternative explanation is good practice; invoking the backfire effect to argue that correction is futile or insulting, so that a claim you benefit from stays uncorrected, is the use of a mostly-failed finding as a shield.

  • ●Do not cite the backfire effect to discourage correction; the multi-study evidence is that corrections work, modestly and across the spectrum.
  • ●Correct claims in the form the evidence supports: fact first, the myth named once with a warning, the reason it is wrong, the fact again, and an alternative explanation for whatever the myth explained.
  • ●Do not frame a correction as a verdict on the audience's intelligence or identity; that is where reactance, not backfire, actually does the damage.

How to defend against it

  • ►When someone tells you that correcting a false belief will only entrench it, ask for the study; then ask whether they benefit from the belief going uncorrected.
  • ►Correct with a replacement, not just a denial: the gap left by a retracted claim will be refilled by the claim unless an alternative account is offered (the continued influence effect).
  • ►Separate the fact from the identity when you correct someone: acknowledge what is true in their concern, then supply the fact, so that giving it up costs less face.
  • ►For your own beliefs, notice the feeling of digging in when corrected and treat it as information about identity, not about evidence; write down what would change your mind before you look at the correction.
  • ►Use the fact-myth-fallacy-fact structure from the Debunking Handbook 2020 in any correction you make in public.

From the Defense Playbook

Self-Affirmation Before Threatening Informationminutes

Spend a few minutes writing about a value that matters to you and is unrelated to the topic before reading evidence that threatens your identity or your group, which lowers the defensiveness that otherwise makes you reject accurate information.

Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.

References

  1. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330
    The original backfire finding on WMD and tax-cut corrections.
  2. Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135-163
    Corrections on 52 issues with more than 10,000 participants produced no backfire; respondents updated toward the facts.
  3. Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531-1546
    Meta-analysis finding debunking effective overall, with persistence of misinformation moderated by message features.
  4. Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 286-299
    Reported backfire effects cluster in small samples and unreliable measures.
  5. Nyhan, B. (2021). Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912440117
    The original author's own conclusion that backfire is rare and does not explain persistent misperceptions.
  6. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., et al. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University
    Current best-practice guidance: backfire is not a reliable concern and corrections should follow the fact-myth-fallacy-fact structure.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Backfire Effect in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Backfire Effect or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account