@AlterIvan1 @GhostOfSocrates I'm not saying they will work for everyone? Where did I say that? I said that this is well-documented as an effective strategy for getting around a specific defense mechanism. Here's even more research: https://t.co/eDOL5IKQY7
@GhostOfSocrates Is Google Scholar also paywalled?https://t.co/eDOL5IKQY7
@AlterIvan1 @GhostOfSocrates Here is some even more research that examined these specific questions, all open access, including one on the effects of affirmation on HIV education: https://t.co/2od4I52Gus https://t.co/aEZQSSacfx https://t.co/1Jfq5gD7eI
@iambatman967 Do your research, Batman. Lol. https://t.co/JKnoVhagFi
@matthewherper @psychunseen @gorskon @angie_rasmussen @EricTopol @PeterHotez @SkepticsGuide It is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it. Backfire effect often overstated Indeed, think necessary given speed bunk can emerge. In general, correct a
My previous statement is inconclusive. So do what you will with that!
@jonathanstea @NicholeLNelson The "backfire effect" complex & (likely) context dependant, but most studies suggest concern overstated. Another relevant study: "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be un
@DarrinADurant @noUpside @katestarbird @Verba_et_Vertus @AltMediaWatch Hi Darrin, we have some evidence that corrections don't backfire even if they're the only thing you see & the misinfo is novel to you (https://t.co/hdl2slvJdr, https://t.co/bpkFhNvt
@agronomistag @karst_justine True. Literature around "backfire effect" complex & context specific. But, in general, most studies say concern overstated. Shouldn't let it scare us away from battling bunk. Safe repeat misinformation when correcting: ht
@ClaraHWhyte @ElsevierConnect @GidMK @jonathanstea @crackedscience @tomblackwellNP @DrvanTilburg @meganranney @SammyG_MD @nilikm @RyanMarino @picardonhealth Good news: "...safe to repeat #misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be u
@kirstennelson1 @meganranney @abuttenheim @jonathanstea Actually, good news: "...it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar with the misinformation." https://t.co/tuSTSWCZ1F And concern about the "ba
@BostonJoan So true, Joan. But it complex (as you know well!). The power of the "backfire effect" is often overstated. Some evidence phenomenon rare. And some evidence safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it (e.g., https://t.co/tuSTSWkPNx by @Ul
@JonathanLegge2 @CoVaRR_Net @HealthyDebate Not sure you mean by "implied misinformation". Lots and lots of data on this: https://t.co/XJC9B15uGH https://t.co/jkXTxaSMES And concern about "backfire effect" also greatly overstated. Interesting recent stu
@dylan__mpn I am no longer terribly worried about the familiarity backfire effect. We have tried repeatedly to reproduce it and thus far no luck, See https://t.co/6iBeZJeOCy and https://t.co/Nby1eIpsVv
RT @netta_doc: DEBUNKING WORKS especially when done by EXPERTS. It *is* safe to repeat information when CORRECTING it! Read the study her…
RT @netta_doc: DEBUNKING WORKS especially when done by EXPERTS. It *is* safe to repeat information when CORRECTING it! Read the study her…
RT @netta_doc: DEBUNKING WORKS especially when done by EXPERTS. It *is* safe to repeat information when CORRECTING it! Read the study her…
RT @netta_doc: DEBUNKING WORKS especially when done by EXPERTS. It *is* safe to repeat information when CORRECTING it! Read the study her…
DEBUNKING WORKS especially when done by EXPERTS. It *is* safe to repeat information when CORRECTING it! Read the study here: https://t.co/AIeY6HgiAf #HRS2021 #SciComm https://t.co/HGsGq7pAvT
@EvavonSchaper @jonathanstea @SajjadFazel @ScienceUpFirst @GovCanHealth @picardonhealth @meganranney @DrLindaMD @KrishanaSankar @GidMK @DeNovo_Fatima Always a balance. But concern about "backfire effect" often overstated. One example: "...safe to repeat
Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect https://t.co/MWtbnzIUkv
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
RT @CaulfieldTim: Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works &…
Is it OK to repeat #misinformation when debunking it? Yep. While likely need more data on pt, we know debunking works & some evidence "safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it..." Don't let fear of "backfire effect" stop a good debunk! See:
People passing around the @Sulliview piece with this @cward1e quote: Is there actually new experimental evidence for familiarity backfire? Or is this: https://t.co/OZ38XPQztD still state of the knowledge? https://t.co/KxUQ1nwKRj
And yet, "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it". https://t.co/SugPxhOD6c
“反作用假说”认为,在辟谣过程中提及错误信息可能会适得其反。人们可能会记住错误信息,而不是辟谣的内容。 一项新的研究否定了“反作用假说”。 https://t.co/ZRHZOgQnwn https://t.co/wEnLJxABQA https://t.co/7yzQitqJfa
@fowlersamanthaa @DG_Rand @AdamBerinsky @GordPennycook Good question! Actually, mentioning the myth in a correction rarely "backfires." This holds true even when people have not heard the original misinformation (CC @UlliEcker ) https://t.co/u4Rq8RKdMF
Results from Aug 2020 analysis, following three experiments: "it is safe to repeat #misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar with the misinformation" @UlliEcker et al. https://t.co/WYnIM45EqB
@geonz @sailormary13 @ddmeyer If done right, I don't worry that much: https://t.co/etlWgcsIkH
@JAWeingarten @happyerinb @checkupcbc well... familiarity backfire has had a grim time in replication attempts recently (https://t.co/OZ38XPQztD). repeating misinformation doesn't seem to make it stick.
RT @SciBeh: useful thread clarifying status of familiarity and backfire effects in misinformation https://t.co/NArzSJpRkM
useful thread clarifying status of familiarity and backfire effects in misinformation
RT @STWorg: @Sander_vdLinden @informor @DG_Rand @clifflampe @grinbergnir @davidlazer @andyguess @AdamBerinsky It's nuanced. There are *fami…
Had a chance to dive into the details of this recent paper. Brief (and biased) take: as @STWorg notes below, sharing a claim with its false/true rating seems *not* to cause familiarity backfire. In other words, the exposure to the claim as part of the fact
RT @STWorg: @Sander_vdLinden @informor @DG_Rand @clifflampe @grinbergnir @davidlazer @andyguess @AdamBerinsky It's nuanced. There are *fami…
RT @STWorg: @Sander_vdLinden @informor @DG_Rand @clifflampe @grinbergnir @davidlazer @andyguess @AdamBerinsky It's nuanced. There are *fami…
RT @STWorg: @Sander_vdLinden @informor @DG_Rand @clifflampe @grinbergnir @davidlazer @andyguess @AdamBerinsky It's nuanced. There are *fami…
RT @STWorg: @Sander_vdLinden @informor @DG_Rand @clifflampe @grinbergnir @davidlazer @andyguess @AdamBerinsky It's nuanced. There are *fami…
@Sander_vdLinden @informor @DG_Rand @clifflampe @grinbergnir @davidlazer @andyguess @AdamBerinsky It's nuanced. There are *familiarity* effects, and they asymmetrically affect corrections more than affirmations (as one would expect). But on balance there i
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
I samme bane
@AmandaLeftCoast @EPoe187 Understandable but consider this recent finding: https://t.co/IgrbSUiPZM
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @brooklynmarie: Told you. Hold that shit up to the light. Scrutiny and criticism aren't the same as platforming and the sooner everyone…
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
Interessante neue Studie, die einmal mehr zeigt, dass der #backfire-Effekt überbewertet wird und es kein Problem ist, Falschinformationen zu wiederholen, wenn man sie korrigieren möchte https://t.co/RE3obDXoqe
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @brooklynmarie: Told you. Hold that shit up to the light. Scrutiny and criticism aren't the same as platforming and the sooner everyone…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @travis_view: Good news: there is some evidence to suggest that misinformation reporters aren't inadvertently making people dumber.
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
Worth knowing
RT @travis_view: Good news: there is some evidence to suggest that misinformation reporters aren't inadvertently making people dumber.
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @brooklynmarie: Told you. Hold that shit up to the light. Scrutiny and criticism aren't the same as platforming and the sooner everyone…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @travis_view: Good news: there is some evidence to suggest that misinformation reporters aren't inadvertently making people dumber.
RT @Neuro_Skeptic: Results suggest that "it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @callin_bull: The *backfire effect* hypothesis proposes that mentioning misinformation in the process of correcting can be counterproduc…
RT @brooklynmarie: Told you. Hold that shit up to the light. Scrutiny and criticism aren't the same as platforming and the sooner everyone…
RT @brooklynmarie: Told you. Hold that shit up to the light. Scrutiny and criticism aren't the same as platforming and the sooner everyone…