Backfire Effect

Emergence of the concept

Hovland, Janis and Kelley's (1953) persuasion research had already noted the possibility of a boomerang effect, in which a message shifts attitudes opposite to the intended direction. Brehm's (1966) psychological reactance theory explained that people who feel their freedom threatened may move toward the forbidden option, and Lord, Ross and Lepper (1979) reported that people viewing the same mixed evidence became more polarized. Nyhan and Reifler (2010) showed articles correcting political misperceptions, such as claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and found that false beliefs grew stronger among some conservative respondents, calling this the backfire effect. Nyhan and colleagues (2014) reported that messages correcting vaccine myths could lower vaccination intentions among parents with negative views of vaccines.

Replication attempts and rebuttals

Wood and Porter (2019) tested more than 10,000 people on 52 issues and found almost no backfire; most respondents accepted corrections and moved their beliefs closer to the facts. Guess and Coppock (2020) likewise found no evidence of backlash to counter-attitudinal information in three large survey experiments. Swire-Thompson, DeGutis and Lazer (2020) pointed out that many apparent backfire results may stem from unreliable measures or small samples. Nyhan (2021) himself concluded that backfire effects are very rare and that political misperceptions endure not because corrections backfire but because their effects are small and fade quickly while elite cues and group identity keep operating.

Current understanding

Lewandowsky and colleagues (2012) warned that repeating a false claim too often when correcting it might make it more memorable through familiarity, but later research has leaned toward finding such familiarity backfire rare as well. In simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa and the United Kingdom, Porter and Wood (2021) reported that fact-checks increased factual accuracy across countries with almost no backfire. Bail and colleagues (2018), however, found that sustained exposure to opposing views on social media made some groups' political attitudes more extreme, showing that factual correction and changes in political attitudes should be distinguished. The rise and fall of the backfire effect is often cited in discussions of the replication crisis and is considered alongside belief perseverance and motivated reasoning.

FAQ

What is the backfire effect in simple terms?

It is when correcting someone's false belief with facts makes them hold it more strongly. Recent large-scale studies, however, show that this happens far less often than once thought.

Is the backfire effect common?

No. In large experiments such as Wood and Porter (2019) and Guess and Coppock (2020), most people adjusted their beliefs toward the facts after corrections. Nyhan, who popularized the concept, has also concluded that backfire effects are very rare.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press.
3. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.
4. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.
5. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131.
6. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842.
7. Bail, C. A., et al. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216–9221.
8. Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135–163.
9. Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2020). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, 50(4), 1497–1515.
10. Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 286–299.
11. Nyhan, B. (2021). Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912440117.
12. Porter, E., & Wood, T. J. (2021). The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(37), e2104235118.