How We KnowCase 001encyclopedia policy

Familiarity backfire from corrective repetition

Does repeating misinformation in a correction make it more believable?

Target-comparable backfire appears in some tested formats and contexts, while replications and later studies also report counterevidence. The record does not warrant a blanket rule against repeating misinformation inside corrections, and the causal mechanism remains unresolved.

The stranger test

Many mentions, fewer evidence roots

10apparent support assertions
4 + 1?target-comparable support roots
12counterevidence data roots

One participant-data lineage per publication-defined data series. Experiments within one publication are collapsed; author, method, material, and research-program overlap remain disclosed separately.

Scope:A lineage audit of the familiarity backfire claim. Independent counts refer to participant-data roots, not complete independence of authors, methods, or research programs. Worldview backfire and continued influence are distinct.

Sentence x-ray

Read the evaluated record

6 policy-selected relations · 86 spans in full dossier

01support

A target-comparable delayed myths-and-facts result in a student sample, subject to the paper's convenience-sample and generalizability limits.

Inspect 2 exact source spans

Source 1.1

Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies

Results vaccine-autism comparison

"This time, beliefs in the vaccines/autism link were statistically significantly higher in the myths vs. facts condition compared to the visual (M = .97, SE = .22, p < .001) and control condition (M = .8, SE = .22, p = .002), and in the fear condition compared to visual condition (M = .67, SE = .22, p = .016)."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:e8dc0bf76e1b68e4af240a5be579c24305a78d660c9df3e555aed36d6ccb66bb
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:feca3a7abbe2eec0ae900bdad82fc92a7e28577b9bdf19509d474d8318c28252
Digest
sha256:4b23bfaf183c95341f30b3c2516def832bda1e644d1ec0a114fe789cf5e40d54
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Source 1.2

Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies

Discussion limitations paragraph 8

"Some aspects of our experimental procedures may limit the generalization of the findings. Firstly, we used a convenience sample with limited variability in age and educational level."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:e8dc0bf76e1b68e4af240a5be579c24305a78d660c9df3e555aed36d6ccb66bb
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:4eb344f23a2dfa8dfea638dad9c6d85fa48ff85dd75334634d3ecbac3d35159a
Digest
sha256:2d301b187fbd36def4ffd3ea220385bee76d380668933658925087446ded8c32
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
02support

Supports the narrower unlicensed-negation boundary and proposed mechanism.

Inspect 2 exact source spans

Source 2.1

Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire Effects

Crossref abstract result

"Misinformation use was significantly greater when a correction was provided without licensing than when no information was provided at all."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:16165aadad13e262a9708a8e8aafd90dfd00cfa95897ddbff2cd43b5c3d6e4e8
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:54008ff854744354478a115debea8fcde2305ddf6f0206b3883ae141922c5684
Digest
sha256:3fbe77e014d6319af253e2a148084bf791fc3324d55760d6705741d20ef49261
License
No open reuse license was confirmed for the version of record; only short attributed abstract fragments are retained and the article is not redistributed.

Source 2.2

Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire Effects

Crossref abstract mechanism

"We suggest that the backfire effect observed in this study may be the result of a violation of the Gricean maxims of communication"
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:16165aadad13e262a9708a8e8aafd90dfd00cfa95897ddbff2cd43b5c3d6e4e8
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:98c7768aba4cbd41d912e34fc38b4c1dda459eab7f9a3b06906af1ad967c0fe6
Digest
sha256:77fcdf6d947caab279118003d76095de02f088f1f6c74d937d0b09cd97155044
License
No open reuse license was confirmed for the version of record; only short attributed abstract fragments are retained and the article is not redistributed.
03rebuttal

Every tested retraction reduced reliance relative to no retraction, and explicit misinformation repetition improved the retraction relative to no reminder. Every retraction also supplied an alternative causal account.

Inspect 4 exact source spans

Source 3.1

Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?

Accepted manuscript p. 3, abstract result

"Retractions that explicitly repeated the misinformation were more effective in reducing misinformation effects than retractions that avoided repetition, presumably because of enhanced salience."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:3ac92844b24d5e23ea987d67aaa41634b7cd474f277464f8095bbad910909804
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:26847f50c137b2cb2c4b7b7c08be807eed953b5da282194402fdaa7c0f6a5caf
Digest
sha256:0b66f2ed1c9e09eb6df7c10b651c8d1cfb421a9540742f507b56c8681cf4bf52
License
Bristol repository metadata labels the accepted manuscript CC BY-NC-ND; four quote-minimal attributed result and method extents are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.

Source 3.2

Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?

Accepted manuscript p. 18, retraction-versus-control result

"any kind of retraction reduced reliance on misinformation compared to a control condition with no retraction"
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:3ac92844b24d5e23ea987d67aaa41634b7cd474f277464f8095bbad910909804
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:ad37607dc9011334cfa46ce2d8b12f359096c8b3f3df274c6f7f8581f357eb4b
Digest
sha256:4b4ba61093d28b7a09ea8edbb784de85f0d3ecd443fe80524e61cccae83b6560
License
Bristol repository metadata labels the accepted manuscript CC BY-NC-ND; four quote-minimal attributed result and method extents are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.

Source 3.3

Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?

Accepted manuscript p. 18, explicit-repeat contrast

"a retraction that explicitly repeated the misinformation (condition RER) lowered reliance on misinformation more than a retraction that provided no reminder (condition RNR)"
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:3ac92844b24d5e23ea987d67aaa41634b7cd474f277464f8095bbad910909804
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:fccbc37a509545ac34a18dab70c72eb54b4dbdec6b9545df9f35ad292a77f62d
Digest
sha256:b5c7e3955926f6ba50aa891ed457eb88c70a5743c94c55a7b62b841822615422
License
Bristol repository metadata labels the accepted manuscript CC BY-NC-ND; four quote-minimal attributed result and method extents are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.

Source 3.4

Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?

Accepted manuscript p. 18, alternative-account qualifier

"each retraction was accompanied by an alternative causal account of the event"
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:3ac92844b24d5e23ea987d67aaa41634b7cd474f277464f8095bbad910909804
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:bbbe225bac116948f98caeb77ff1e777cc8d405b5d43c7f1fe47fbd1258b108d
Digest
sha256:64f132d9c1ba3aeb9fe28aeb96599a952ffaad86b5dd7ab270bc273d487ffcb0
License
Bristol repository metadata labels the accepted manuscript CC BY-NC-ND; four quote-minimal attributed result and method extents are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.
04rebuttal

Both experiments retained corrected belief below the pre-correction baseline despite delayed regression.

Inspect 3 exact source spans

Source 4.1

The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information

Manuscript p. 16, Experiment 1 result

"As post-manipulation belief levels remained below pre-manipulation belief levels, no true backfire effect was elicited."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:11c69648efec7d7436f0b22681213ae965384ce1b2317ed95748d35b52e6f71b
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:67cea7ef21da8067b0900ddf3bc0454934f50112ae4e5ba26a1507f3a6cd6cbf
Digest
sha256:2b7cbde31cb58b716ce4bef49b67bc69a2658c80db11ae58bef8e334c34d5cf6
License
No open reuse license was confirmed for the coauthor-lab manuscript; only three quote-minimal attributed result sentences are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.

Source 4.2

The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information

Manuscript p. 22, Experiment 2 result

"As post-manipulation myth belief levels remained below pre-manipulation belief levels, no true backfire effect was elicited."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:11c69648efec7d7436f0b22681213ae965384ce1b2317ed95748d35b52e6f71b
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:aae1631679fac26b7d5ef3902d957f820632727ccd04f164db3dbe8578c8776b
Digest
sha256:28bb00172915d296cb5b7a62697392451d874ac254d40f39ad8a66418fb345dc
License
No open reuse license was confirmed for the coauthor-lab manuscript; only three quote-minimal attributed result sentences are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.

Source 4.3

The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information

Manuscript p. 30, discussion conclusion

"However, we found no evidence for the existence of a true familiarity-based backfire effect."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:11c69648efec7d7436f0b22681213ae965384ce1b2317ed95748d35b52e6f71b
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:1dda269f69b9276d6d80febceb648db83de6bc97dc0321e263b94d97cadea100
Digest
sha256:4d93c225b3db9a30425b55619723c0fda057f817934daad436233f1429b194be
License
No open reuse license was confirmed for the coauthor-lab manuscript; only three quote-minimal attributed result sentences are retained and the PDF is not redistributed.
05rebuttal

Five brand-misinformation studies did not observe familiarity backfire.

Inspect 2 exact source spans

Source 5.1

Familiarity backfire effects? Disentangling the competing effects of repetition and fact-checking corrections of brand misinformation

PDF p. 1 abstract scope

"Across five studies (N = 4337), this article systematically compares the competing effects of repetition and correction on belief in corporate misinformation and brand evaluations."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:a061f49e557eb815b7172afe9da641fc489366190997b0554c4953a3a7c5dbff
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:473baa094df666b2465ff37a9513236fffe451d903e5947babcc7aa009779a68
Digest
sha256:c90d59bc538df2664e52b40a97a3f1d0922c3b45ec901d3dfa512ad89e56b4cc
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Source 5.2

Familiarity backfire effects? Disentangling the competing effects of repetition and fact-checking corrections of brand misinformation

PDF p. 1 abstract result

"This research finds no evidence of a familiarity backfire effect: in none of the studies, repetition increases belief in the misinformation more than correction reduces it."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:a061f49e557eb815b7172afe9da641fc489366190997b0554c4953a3a7c5dbff
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:b4d241739581fb1815878ad90abbf9607d93f13ab7d269037adea2d7e89ba19e
Digest
sha256:ec3db4151b90bc0fbd5c4a78095c5567e9493d97554526837fe0970baf92d05e
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
06qualification

Preserves the induced-skepticism open-response result as an unresolved boundary.

Inspect 1 exact source span

Source 6.1

Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections

Abstract results and qualification

"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."
Edition
em:dossier-edition:sha256:0b0390469f562099baf4aa24f693be88f9e4649d5814abc9ff0417a4212fe6fb
Span
em:dossier-span:sha256:312a906bf71acd0b989eff19d01ea6e6874ddff21546c2956a6809af1baaa99a
Digest
sha256:e44347d354ee736e558729127188099a1289b94334b3e7f8058573dec9843860
License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

Kept visible

What remains unresolved

  • Unresolved lineage. Unknown participant-data root for the unpublished Skurnik, Yoon, and Schwarz 2007 flu-flyer manuscript. Later sources describe the result, but the manuscript, data, sample record, and direct edition remain unavailable. em:dossier-lineage:sha256:bcdc8f465086810c43d44ee4421818d87928b2234df8f8749f14d2d3a83d0bc3

Policy reasons

  • target comparable support preserved
  • counterevidence preserved
  • baseline mismatch preserved
  • skepticism boundary unresolved
  • mechanism attribution unresolved
Open the complete 25-work source register
  1. How Warnings about False Claims Become RecommendationsIan Skurnik, Carolyn Yoon, Denise C. Park, Norbert Schwarz
  2. The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire EffectJohn Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky
  3. Making the Truth Stick & the Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive PsychologyNorbert Schwarz, Eryn Newman, William Leach
  4. When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not)Christina Peter, Thomas Koch
  5. A Case for Clarity in the Writing of Health StatementsElizabeth A. H. Wilson, Denise C. Park
  6. Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political MisinformationAdam J. Berinsky
  7. Patient Knowledge and Recall of Health Information Following Exposure to “Facts and Myths” Message Format VariationsKenzie A. Cameron, Michael E. Roloff, Elisha M. Friesema, Tiffany Brown, Borko D. Jovanovic, Sara Hauber, David W. Baker
  8. Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effectUllrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, Matthew Chadwick
  9. The effectiveness of short‐format refutational fact‐checksUllrich K. H. Ecker, Ziggy O’Reilly, Jesse S. Reid, Ee Pin Chang
  10. Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Joshua L. Hogan, Stephan Lewandowsky
  11. Reminders of Everyday Misinformation Statements Can Enhance Memory for and Beliefs in Corrections of Those Statements in the Short TermChristopher N. Wahlheim, Timothy R. Alexander, Carson D. Peske
  12. Recalling Fake News During Real News Corrections Can Impair or Enhance Memory Updating: The Role of Recollection-Based RetrievalPaige L. Kemp, Timothy R. Alexander, Christopher N. Wahlheim
  13. Fake News Reminders and Veracity Labels Differentially Benefit Memory and Belief Accuracy for News HeadlinesPaige L. Kemp, Vanessa M. Loaiza, Christopher N. Wahlheim
  14. Processing Style and Responsiveness to Corrective InformationDustin Carnahan, R. Kelly Garrett
  15. The Continued Influence of Implied and Explicitly Stated Misinformation in News ReportsPatrick R. Rich, Maria S. Zaragoza
  16. The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate InformationBriony Swire, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky
  17. Polarity and Attitude Effects in the Continued-Influence ParadigmAndrew Gordon, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky
  18. Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone correctionsToby Prike, Phoebe Blackley, Briony Swire-Thompson, Ullrich K. H. Ecker
  19. Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effectsUllrich K. H. Ecker, Caitlin X. M. Sharkey, Briony Swire-Thompson
  20. Correcting the unknown: Negated corrections may increase belief in misinformationKevin S. Autry, Shea E. Duarte
  21. Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategiesSara Pluviano, Caroline Watt, Sergio Della Sala
  22. Parents’ beliefs in misinformation about vaccines are strengthened by pro-vaccine campaignsSara Pluviano, Caroline Watt, Giovanni Ragazzini, Sergio Della Sala
  23. Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire EffectsJacob G. Thomas, Kevin S. Autry
  24. The backfire effect after correcting misinformation is strongly associated with reliabilityBriony Swire-Thompson, Nicholas Miklaucic, John P. Wihbey, David Lazer, Joseph DeGutis
  25. Familiarity backfire effects? Disentangling the competing effects of repetition and fact-checking corrections of brand misinformationIpek N. Nibat, Olivier Trendel, Robert Mai, Tinka Krüger, Wassili Lasarov, Stefan Hoffmann

Build receipt

Reproduce this projection

Reproducible projection
Dossier
em:dossier:sha256:4339d6d6d52b9b534d2e63c95f52ff3cf90be5264f567762f47bab9af4d945a7
View policy
em:application-policy:encyclopedia-v0.1
Catalog
em:catalog:sha256:0d9616fa4d425836cffb086eac8ba45b72dce37b301d21e4e6f75ddb602336a9
Frontier
em:frontier:sha256:809f7a5b90294fbebb988bfd0b1dc7deb85368df4990cf3b13a5357b2472c3ad
Accepted commit
07ebab2bbdf096c58ef51c879244b8a93852bd4b
Epistemic policy
commons-balanced-v0.1
Disclosure policy
public-noninterference-v0.1
Compiler
epistemedia/0.2.0
Content digest
786ea66ff138a79dbd9a627d577ae9862793b31460bb918e2e7909a6bd827d25