Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37395864›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2023

Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections.

Toby Prike, Phoebe Blackley, Briony Swire-Thompson, Ullrich K H Ecker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Assessing How Fact-Checks Influence Accuracy and Consensus Judgments: Evidence From the Olympics.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Toby PrikeSchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. toby.prike@uwa.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7602-4947
Phoebe BlackleySchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Briony Swire-ThompsonNetwork Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7464-8940
Ullrich K H EckerSchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4743-313X

Funding

Cancer misinformation on social media and its correctionK99CA248720 · NCI · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SWIRE-THOMPSON, BRIONY · 2021 to 2022
$308k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA248720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Corrections are a frequently used and effective tool for countering misinformation. However, concerns have been raised that corrections may introduce false claims to new audiences when the misinformation is novel. This is because boosting the familiarity of a claim can increase belief in that claim, and thus exposing new audiences to novel misinformation-even as part of a correction-may inadvertently increase misinformation belief. Such an outcome could be conceptualized as a familiarity backfire effect, whereby a familiarity boost increases false-claim endorsement above a control-condition or pre-correction baseline. Here, we examined whether standalone corrections-that is, corrections presented without initial misinformation exposure-can backfire and increase participants' reliance on the misinformation in their subsequent inferential reasoning, relative to a no-misinformation, no-correction control condition. Across three experiments (total N = 1156) we found that standalone corrections did not backfire immediately (Experiment 1) or after a one-week delay (Experiment 2). However, there was some mixed evidence suggesting corrections may backfire when there is skepticism regarding the correction (Experiment 3). Specifically, in Experiment 3, we found the standalone correction to backfire in open-ended responses, but only when there was skepticism towards the correction. However, this did not replicate with the rating scales measure. Future research should further examine whether skepticism towards the correction is the first replicable mechanism for backfire effects to occur.

Indexed as

CommunicationRecognition, PsychologyHumansProblem SolvingCorrectionsFamiliarity backfire effectMisinformationSkepticism

Identifiers

PMID37395864
PMCPMC10317933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.