Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations.
Level 5 - mechanism / opinion, no new human data
Narrative methodological review (design analogy to non-clinical CEBM Level 5)
PubMed 32905023 · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006
What was done
Narrative review evaluating the current state of literature on worldview and familiarity backfire effects (where corrections reportedly increase belief in misconceptions). The authors analyzed barriers to measuring backfire effects, discussed methods to improve experimental design and measurement, and offered recommendations for fact-checkers.
What was found
The abstract reports no numerical data. It notes that recent studies have failed to replicate backfire effects even under theoretically favorable conditions, leading the authors to conclude that the backfire effect is not a robust empirical phenomenon.
Why it matters
It questions the widespread concern that fact-checking routinely backfires, helping science communicators and fact-checkers avoid unnecessary hesitation while guiding more rigorous experimental research.
Limits
As a narrative review without systematic search protocols or meta-analytic data, no quantitative metrics, effect sizes, or study sample sizes are provided in the abstract.
Cited by
- contradicts In a political psychology study, presenting objective counterevidence to Democrats and Republicans reinforced their pre-existing beliefs as strongly as supportive information.