Read on Twitter
100% true no amount of fact-checking will give people in intensely polarized US “a common ground of reality on which to stand” as @Sulliview wrote Aug 29. But since many seem to jump from that to idea fact-checking doesn’t work, public service announcement RE"backfire effect” 1/9
Notion comes from 2010 article by @BrendanNyhan and @JasonReifler. My sense is it has since become gospel among many journalists that fact-checking doesn’t work. At least I hear it dismissed often with a quick “oh but backfire effect”. But what does the research actually say? 2/9
As @brendannyhan has pointed out time and again original paper finds backfire effects in 2 of 5 studies and was careful to note that it was a *possibility* in some cases among partisans due to directionally motivated reasoning about controversial facts https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-23/N 3/9
What has happened in the ten years since? Scientists have done science. It’s what we do!
We are eager beavers who beaver away at complicated questions and try to produce better answers.
There have been a lot of studies. Let me draw attention to just three of them. 4/9
We are eager beavers who beaver away at complicated questions and try to produce better answers.
There have been a lot of studies. Let me draw attention to just three of them. 4/9
First, @thomasjwood and @ethanvporter did a much, much larger experimental study across 52 issues of potential backfire. Conclusion? “By and large, citizens heed factual information, even when such information challenges their ideological commitments.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y4/N 5/9
Second, Walter et al have meta-analysis of 30 studies. They underline participants’ preexisting beliefs, ideology, and knowledge matters a great deal, but also conclude “fact-checking has a significantly positive overall influence on political beliefs” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2019.16688945/N 6/9
How have those behind the 2010 study responded? Passionately defending their old findings? Dismissing new work as wrong? No. Scientists argue often, but overall, science is collaborative and cumulative. Here is @brendannyhan https://twitter.com/brendannyhan/status/931683082243067909 and https://twitter.com/brendannyhan/status/948546950525341696?lang=en-gb6/N 7/9
And that's not it! There is much more research here. E.g @LeticiaBode and @ekvraga showing "algorithmic and social corrections are equally effective in limiting misperceptions, and correction occurs for both high and low conspiracy belief individuals" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312 7/9
Would be nice if more journalists reported based on best available scientific evidence on fact checking as much else. (Perhaps esp when it shows journalism works?) But - like filter bubbles or “screen time” - term seems to have taken on life of its own, unmoored from science 8/9
This thread is NOT about @Sulliview's piece, it's good, and she is one of the absolutely best observers of US journalism, news, and media. It's about how facts - and fact-checking - matters. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/fact-checking-trumps-lies-is-essential-its-also-increasingly-pointless/2020/08/28/35fb41de-e947-11ea-bc79-834454439a44_story.html 9/9
