# Does repeating misinformation in a correction make it more believable?

**How We Know case 001 · Encyclopedia policy**

> 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.

**Question:** When a correction repeats a false claim, does familiarity generally cause belief or reliance to rise above an uncorrected or pre-correction baseline?

**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.

## The lineage count

- Apparent support assertions: **10**
- Known supporting participant-data roots: **6**
- Target-comparable supporting roots: **4 known + 1 unresolved**
- Counterevidence assertions: **12**
- Counterevidence participant-data roots: **12**

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.

## Evidence record

### 1. Support

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

Relation: `em:dossier-evidence-relation:sha256:3dfb8f9ef24dbd5d669c20770cef0e5c79df2e00c275f7ec06903c48affd2d1b`

Exact accepted source spans:

- **Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies** — Results vaccine-autism comparison
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181640
  - License treatment: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- **Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies** — Discussion limitations paragraph 8
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181640
  - License treatment: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

### 2. Support

Supports the narrower unlicensed-negation boundary and proposed mechanism.

Relation: `em:dossier-evidence-relation:sha256:a28899252a77634b139620daa50c82dc7d5349db5b90896500621900957a104c`

Exact accepted source spans:

- **Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire Effects** — Crossref abstract result
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70004
  - License treatment: No open reuse license was confirmed for the version of record; only short attributed abstract fragments are retained and the article is not redistributed.
- **Unlicensed Corrections Violate the Gricean Maxims of Communication: Evidence for a Cognitive Mechanism Underlying Misinformation Backfire Effects** — Crossref abstract mechanism
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70004
  - License treatment: No open reuse license was confirmed for the version of record; only short attributed abstract fragments are retained and the article is not redistributed.

### 3. Rebuttal

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.

Relation: `em:dossier-evidence-relation:sha256:dc735edaa2c3530d7722db7ebe3cb98ed6fe2f47c75ccaf5bc90b1904de3e166`

Exact accepted source spans:

- **Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?** — Accepted manuscript p. 3, abstract result
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014
  - License treatment: 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.
- **Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?** — Accepted manuscript p. 18, retraction-versus-control result
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014
  - License treatment: 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.
- **Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?** — Accepted manuscript p. 18, explicit-repeat contrast
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014
  - License treatment: 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.
- **Reminders and Repetition of Misinformation: Helping or Hindering Its Retraction?** — Accepted manuscript p. 18, alternative-account qualifier
  - Exact extent: “"each retraction was accompanied by an alternative causal account of the event"”
  - Edition: `em:dossier-edition:sha256:3ac92844b24d5e23ea987d67aaa41634b7cd474f277464f8095bbad910909804`
  - Span: `em:dossier-span:sha256:bbbe225bac116948f98caeb77ff1e777cc8d405b5d43c7f1fe47fbd1258b108d`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014
  - License treatment: 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.

### 4. Rebuttal

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

Relation: `em:dossier-evidence-relation:sha256:948587dc8853c0ccd76af5a5f9f23a209d2b8585f53849b89ed300ec7b3f8855`

Exact accepted source spans:

- **The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information** — Manuscript p. 16, Experiment 1 result
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000422
  - License treatment: 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.
- **The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information** — Manuscript p. 22, Experiment 2 result
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000422
  - License treatment: 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.
- **The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information** — Manuscript p. 30, discussion conclusion
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000422
  - License treatment: 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.

### 5. Rebuttal

Five brand-misinformation studies did not observe familiarity backfire.

Relation: `em:dossier-evidence-relation:sha256:a60b1d01a86ab0d6c43d18d10a47cd70196cc20aa900361707469815c3d86d9c`

Exact accepted source spans:

- **Familiarity backfire effects? Disentangling the competing effects of repetition and fact-checking corrections of brand misinformation** — PDF p. 1 abstract scope
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2026.03.007
  - License treatment: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- **Familiarity backfire effects? Disentangling the competing effects of repetition and fact-checking corrections of brand misinformation** — PDF p. 1 abstract result
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2026.03.007
  - License treatment: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

### 6. Qualification

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

Relation: `em:dossier-evidence-relation:sha256:07cc3b3d226bbd04fb07616344ea1fdf879db6ebe893b10773aef0513525b870`

Exact accepted source spans:

- **Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections** — Abstract results and qualification
  - Exact extent: “"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`
  - Source: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00492-z
  - License treatment: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).

## What remains unresolved

- 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`

## Reproducibility receipt

- Dossier: `em:dossier:sha256:4339d6d6d52b9b534d2e63c95f52ff3cf90be5264f567762f47bab9af4d945a7`
- Catalog: `em:catalog:sha256:bbb220ad1a77ab1caf572a544534da57b633bd27d43b347a53522eae6caf5c50`
- Frontier: `em:frontier:sha256:ce9c3933ec7290b0cbd593ae26c9415bc913adca94b156e5dc1e2adb7c0db210`
- Accepted commit: `c5b307f6960514be3d71fdbed5fe41aec5d9b00d`
- View policy: `em:application-policy:encyclopedia-v0.1`
- Epistemic policy: `commons-balanced-v0.1`
- Disclosure policy: `public-noninterference-v0.1`
- Compiler: `epistemedia/0.2.0`
- Content digest: `1fd67b339d5b56d5f71025f32a18e1888a21d627fda61357db2818c9bbda7d78`
- Independent review receipt: `research/how-we-know/corrections-backfire/review-receipts/20260822T183134Z-codex-independent-reviewer.json`