Factual corrections rarely backfire even on ideologically charged issues

Evidence

When reviewing the Asch, Stanford, and other oft-cited psychology studies, it is important to keep in mind that a lot of them were done a long time ago. Our culture has changed, and science has moved on. In many aspects we now have better ways of conducting such experiments. We also use much larger and more diverse samples than before. For example, an examination of 133 studies that have used an Asch-type experiment show that conformity with the line-judgment task in the US has actually been declining since the 1950s. Moreover, a lot of studies back in the day were exclusively done on small and homogenous student samples. More contemporary studies, using larger and more diverse samples, have found that ‘belief polarization’ or ‘backfire effects’ are much rarer than initially thought, and that even when people are motivated, there’s a limit: like Sean Spicer, people do (eventually) succumb to repeated corrections about their beliefs. In one recent study, called the ‘elusive backfire effect’, researchers enrolled over 10,000 subjects and tested factual corrections on fifty-two contentious issues, including immigration, abortion, gun violence, and the Iraq War. The authors could not replicate a single instance of backfire. They concluded that, ‘by and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments’. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 137

Categorization

• XREF: Directly contradicts the widely taught ‘backfire effect’ from earlier persuasion literature; connects to corrections-research skepticism like Nyhan-Reifler. — connects to: Factual correction of conspiracism usually fails or backfires — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 119; Factual hearings rarely shift entrenched public opinion — Dorothy A. Brown, Getting to Reparations: How Building a…, 1145; Materialist errors are correctable by evidence, not reducible to discursive position (+5 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: what exactly made the 10,000-subject study unable to find backfire where earlier viral studies claimed it — topic selection, wording, or sampling?

Broader Connections

• Factual hearings rarely shift entrenched public opinion #corroborates (0.90) — Dorothy A. Brown, Getting to Reparations, 1145
• People keep discredited beliefs when corrections leave no replacement explanation #qualifies (0.80) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 277
• People resist updating beliefs even at the cost of accuracy #contradicts (0.80)
• Corrections work best when paired with a credible alternative explanation #qualifies (0.75) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 280
• Accusations of hoax resist correction in ways ordinary bias accusations do not #qualifies (0.75) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 243
• Materialist errors are correctable by evidence, not reducible to discursive position #corroborates (0.72)