@BayesandBounds Links to two good papers (and an overview article) starting here if interested 🙂: https://t.co/rD5qSGoIuk
@KommisPolitik @AnnikaJoeres @correctiv_org Dümmer geht leider immer, s.o. https://t.co/gl3H6ZTqQb
@MarionHoch1 @robertessmann42 Aber wie gesagt, egal was man dir präsentiert, du wirst es eh nicht annehmen. Und das ist auch ok. https://t.co/gl3H6ZTqQb
@chaosprime @acidshill Good shitpost but I don’t buy it. Lots of orgs tried very hard to be nice about this (as opposed to “you idiots”) and in any case much evidence that persuasive backfire effects are not actually that common. See e.g. https://t.co/lZH
RT @AvStekelenburg: Although the effect is small, communicating scientific consensus appears to be an effective way to change factual belie…
Encouraging information for campaigners and scientists, and hopefully fit the impact of data on political decision making: "By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments." https://t.co/
@SnowRaptor Atééé pode ocorrer. Mas, embora eu ainda não tenha visto uma meta-análise, parece q o consenso atual é q o efeito backfire não é tão prevalente assim. https://t.co/XJ9iFyyP1K
RT @LeticiaBode: @hrvenkatesh @KhariBiskut Here are two relevant articles that both show an absence of backfire effects - https://t.co/ELE9…
RT @LeticiaBode: @hrvenkatesh @KhariBiskut Here are two relevant articles that both show an absence of backfire effects - https://t.co/ELE9…
@LumbeeLaura @EthanVPorter and here:
@hrvenkatesh @KhariBiskut Here are two relevant articles that both show an absence of backfire effects - https://t.co/ELE9yiQO8x and https://t.co/t1z41lloIh (I think both are open access but please let me know if you need a pdf!). #GlobalFact9
@drvolts The Backfire Effect https://t.co/e9u3vTwYNK
Holy fuck I am so glad to hear this https://t.co/kVIdPqafg4?
Although the effect is small, communicating scientific consensus appears to be an effective way to change factual beliefs about contested science topics. There is no sign of backfire, like in much other research: e.g., https://t.co/HZR7R6uIfb
@EPoe187 I worked on a paper w Tom Woods and Ethan Porter and suggested several examples they include in this paper here https://t.co/qbVYHlcShH
@about37hobos Telling people facts generally works https://t.co/Xom6ClTxSv
@about37hobos Wood 2018: there is no evidence for a consistent "backfire effect"; telling people facts generally changes their minds; the effect of factual correction is ~1/3 as large as the effect of ideology on stated belief https://t.co/ZdgAjjTsKz https
@BEworks @EthanVPorter This tweet seems to understate (somewhat misleadingly) the extent to which backfire effects (if they happen at all) are a very rare exception, rather than the norm. https://t.co/rk0x9MndHe https://t.co/D491Gvwq0U
@bobboynton Hi Bob! That was a finding that more recent research has shown is very rare. Check out this article by @EthanVPorter & @thomasjwood . https://t.co/t1z41lloIh
@ipnosimmia @CaulfieldTim @or_unn @SiouxsieW @TheSpinoffTV @Walter4C By 'thin evidence' I don't think Tim means there haven't been many studies, but rather that the balance of evidence from the studies conducted is that the 'backfire effect' is either very
@degal https://t.co/O3cWgGI4qQ from @EthanVPorter and @thomasjwood
RT @DG_Rand: Fact-checking could help fight misinformation online: ➤ Platforms can downrank flagged content so that fewer users see it…
Same for many non-COVID issues: https://t.co/O6jQC5UwMe. Too much skepticism about fact-check efficacy out there. At this point, academic lit shows consistent pattern of fact-checks 1) reducing misperceptions but also 2) having limited effects on downstrea
RT @rasmus_kleis: What about interventions? Research can help independently test them, and there is work on e.g fact checking effect on pub…
What about interventions? Research can help independently test them, and there is work on e.g fact checking effect on public https://t.co/LW9I1f3NPC and politicians https://t.co/0CDCgcovHO, on corrections https://t.co/tGz2h0HB1j, media literacy https://t.c
RT @DG_Rand: Fact-checking could help fight misinformation online: ➤ Platforms can downrank flagged content so that fewer users see it…
@mpershan @oldandrewuk @benjaminjriley OK. I think there is nothing wrong with that letter and I don’t think the evidence supports the idea that there is anything wrong with that letter. The final sentence of this link from earlier directly applies. https:
@mpershan @oldandrewuk @benjaminjriley “By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.” https://t.co/1o9bxhmOgb
@AtlanticDivvy @MBluczech @paulkrugman How long ago did you study. There’s a ton of research out over the last 5-10 years that supports my argument. One example: https://t.co/5s87RLwvpA
@Miss__Aligned The backfire effect has actually been relatively well proven to be incorrect. See "The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence | SpringerLink" https://t.co/hsKvVXbbb4
@AskelandLori @manes I thought of the backfire effect as well, but see: https://t.co/Wi5ohYydqy
RT @BrendanNyhan: @JasonReifler & I found backfire effects in 2 of 5 exps in early study https://t.co/oZsat3u1My Wrongly interpreted to mea…
RT @BrendanNyhan: @JasonReifler & I found backfire effects in 2 of 5 exps in early study https://t.co/oZsat3u1My Wrongly interpreted to mea…
@JasonReifler & I found backfire effects in 2 of 5 exps in early study https://t.co/oZsat3u1My Wrongly interpreted to mean backfire common Further research finds backfire is rare https://t.co/oyEDSbIOM2 https://t.co/Sl8zzvveGO However still shaping de
@afrodykee @Cayliana telling people facts generally changes their minds (no backfire effect): the effect of factual correction is ~1/3 as large as the effect of ideology on stated belief: https://t.co/Vs9XgPQP6g https://t.co/ZdgAjkb499 https://t.co/PBkQtxH
RT @JanHaugland: @NewYorker @lthomasnews An interesting article, but headline is not true. Claim that facts don't change minds was well pub…
@NewYorker @lthomasnews An interesting article, but headline is not true. Claim that facts don't change minds was well publicized and later debunked: "By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological
Anyways, here’s a source showing that people are actually open to evidence countering their beliefs: https://t.co/9nrUUssiNN “By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.”
RT @DG_Rand: Fact-checking could help fight misinformation online: ➤ Platforms can downrank flagged content so that fewer users see it…
Fact-checking could help fight misinformation online: ➤ Platforms can downrank flagged content so that fewer users see it ➤ Corrections can reduce false beliefs (forget backfires: e.g. https://t.co/Jb5DvMSz8x by @thomasjwood @EthanVPorter) 🚨But there
@rasmus_kleis @thomasjwood @EthanVPorter Many thanks for this! - Only the link seems to be broken. Maybe this works: https://t.co/vjenFLAfmk
@notreallyjcm here are the studies for anyone interested: https://t.co/smYm9y7gm6 https://t.co/WGRNPOcPcY
@ZaidJilani @toad_spotted Hate to tell you about research on backfiring: https://t.co/ZE9DCG0u7w
RT @JuriScience: @prof_goldberg Glad you think my concern has merit. Frankly, although these studies seem statistically rigorous, I fail to…
@prof_goldberg Glad you think my concern has merit. Frankly, although these studies seem statistically rigorous, I fail to see any relevance for people who have to decide how to communicate in specific instances. If you want to read: <https://t.co/41c2
RT @doctorow: The original experiments that established the Backfire Effect as a bedrock of social psychology have spectacularly, repeatedl…
RT @doctorow: The original experiments that established the Backfire Effect as a bedrock of social psychology have spectacularly, repeatedl…
RT @doctorow: The original experiments that established the Backfire Effect as a bedrock of social psychology have spectacularly, repeatedl…
RT @doctorow: The original experiments that established the Backfire Effect as a bedrock of social psychology have spectacularly, repeatedl…
The original experiments that established the Backfire Effect as a bedrock of social psychology have spectacularly, repeatedly failed to replicate: https://t.co/uMZTabtq90 https://t.co/7yfjS5YmIO https://t.co/xVDTy8hU1M 5/
@NeilLewisJr @dstephenlindsay @stephenfloor New lit reviews dropping very soon but for now see https://t.co/kySLXhkJRA for a more up-to-date review. See also https://t.co/4rt2a8Vdhu https://t.co/oyEDSbIOM2 on backfire specifically; seems to be very rare ba
@SalomonsenJonas @MortenElsoe Ja, det er et rodet forskningsfelt. Men "backfire"-effekten opstår tilsyneladende kun under visse omstændigheder. Mange studier finder den ikke, i hvert fald ikke konsistent. Se fx https://t.co/fuYGwfAlko
@emilybell @sshadian This is a pretty significant experimental test of whether refutation of political misinformation works, and the answer is basically "yes" https://t.co/lZHp0zoc00
RT @chrishanretty: @PaulbernalUK @davidallengreen @SixVpf I think the backfire effect has probably been exaggerated : more recent research…
Interesting. @DrJessBerentson so there’s hope yet?
RT @chrishanretty: @PaulbernalUK @davidallengreen @SixVpf I think the backfire effect has probably been exaggerated : more recent research…
RT @chrishanretty: @PaulbernalUK @davidallengreen @SixVpf I think the backfire effect has probably been exaggerated : more recent research…
RT @chrishanretty: @PaulbernalUK @davidallengreen @SixVpf I think the backfire effect has probably been exaggerated : more recent research…
RT @chrishanretty: @PaulbernalUK @davidallengreen @SixVpf I think the backfire effect has probably been exaggerated : more recent research…
@PaulbernalUK @davidallengreen @SixVpf I think the backfire effect has probably been exaggerated : more recent research has trouble finding it https://t.co/2JUyvv19pW
-another piece of evidence that fact-checks work even when they're politically uncongenial (see this paper which checks across various issues https://t.co/O6jQC5UwMe; we found this recently too across different fact-check types https://t.co/MYg3NApQVp)
Reading for the vaccine hesitancy research community: The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes’ Steadfast Factual Adherence" by Wood and Porter, 2019. The "backfire effect" is refuted in 5 experimental studies involving 52 issues. https://t.co/uPXD5FZq
@dreadconquest @BexGraham Yep, but notice the bit about how the familiarity backfire effect has itself been contradicted by recent evidence. Debunking lies probably does more good than harm. https://t.co/pCojVfqAfv
@jayvanbavel seems like this article from OSU researchers contradicts the backfire effect! they found no evidence of belief perseverance on political issues over 5 different survey studies, actually recording a separation from the exposed false beliefs! ht
RT @MaxHennig3: @paulbloomatyale I'll just take the other end of your question; see this article which investigates the "backfire effect" i…
RT @DG_Rand: @paulbloomatyale I think these "backfire" effects are *way* overblown. We don't find any backfire using disputed/false warning…
@paulbloomatyale I think these "backfire" effects are *way* overblown. We don't find any backfire using disputed/false warnings here https://t.co/oHFt9rWwvF and correction backfire findings (eg nhyan reifler) have repeatedly not replicated eg https://t.co/
@paulbloomatyale I'll just take the other end of your question; see this article which investigates the "backfire effect" in five high-powered experiments: https://t.co/woaZZWMiWv --> No indication of a paradoxical strengthening of belief after counte
@BuzzfeedGDebord How about this paper: intending to test the "backfire" effect, ended up finding that ppl correct beliefs after being presented with facts. Does not neccessarily translate to change in voting behavior: https://t.co/DyW8s422KU
RT @LizNeeley: #NASColloquia - Here's @BrendanNyhan writing for @UpshotNYT in 2016 - https://t.co/WdyLhLsj24 & Wood et al 2018 - https://t…
RT @LizNeeley: #NASColloquia - Here's @BrendanNyhan writing for @UpshotNYT in 2016 - https://t.co/WdyLhLsj24 & Wood et al 2018 - https://t…
RT @LizNeeley: #NASColloquia - Here's @BrendanNyhan writing for @UpshotNYT in 2016 - https://t.co/WdyLhLsj24 & Wood et al 2018 - https://t…
#NASColloquia - Here's @BrendanNyhan writing for @UpshotNYT in 2016 - https://t.co/WdyLhLsj24 & Wood et al 2018 - https://t.co/XcYldQ9B7u tl;dr - #backfire effect not nearly as big a threat as anticipated https://t.co/t9juS12Thn
@taylorgrayson @Soarpoints @greg_ashman (Journal version https://t.co/ybsv2KSwGj)
So, this paper basically says they were not able to reproduce the backfire effect. 1 to 1. Are there any more studies looking at the backfire effect? #scicommjc
Please Do tell us more during the discussion part of this chat! #scicommjc
@snouraini I think we need to be careful about putting too much stock in the backfire effect on attitudes due to more recent research. #scicommjc https://t.co/5W24W1dWFG
@Nick_B_Adams @SAGEOceanTweets Backfire has been pretty effectively contested, see: https://t.co/SI9kY9QEVT
Remember the "Backfire Effect"? A study claimed true believers more, not less likely to keep believing false claims when given factual information. This is a reminded that the study did NOT replicate. People tend to respond well to facts! https://t.co/vWS
@mpheikkinen @AKA_ohjelmat @MEXstudy Uutta tietoa hanke ei luonnollisestikaan ole vielä tuottanut, mutta voin läväyttää sinulle aiheesta keräämäni tähän astiset viitteet. Esim. faktojen kertomisen aiheuttama vastareaktio (backfire) on aihe, jota on tutkitt
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @ahonen_anneli: Yli 10 000 osallistujaa viidessä kokeessa, kaikissa tulos: väärän tiedon korjaaminen ei kostaudu ja vahvista väärää tiet…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @ahonen_anneli: Yli 10 000 osallistujaa viidessä kokeessa, kaikissa tulos: väärän tiedon korjaaminen ei kostaudu ja vahvista väärää tiet…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @EUvsDisinfo: Still think that debunking disinformation doesn't work? Five vast experiments by @SpringerSocSci show how factual correcti…
RT @ahonen_anneli: Yli 10 000 osallistujaa viidessä kokeessa, kaikissa tulos: väärän tiedon korjaaminen ei kostaudu ja vahvista väärää tiet…
RT @ahonen_anneli: Yli 10 000 osallistujaa viidessä kokeessa, kaikissa tulos: väärän tiedon korjaaminen ei kostaudu ja vahvista väärää tiet…