The Backfire Effect: When Correcting False Beliefs Has the Opposite of the Intended Effect
How providing people with evidence about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines can backfire.
Simon Oxenham covers the best and the worst from the world of psychology and neuroscience. Formerly writing with the pseudonym "Neurobonkers", Simon has a history of debunking dodgy scientific research and tearing apart questionable science journalism in an irreverent style. Simon has written and blogged for publishers including: The Psychologist, Nature, Scientific American and The Guardian. His work has been praised in the New York Times and The Guardian and described in Pearson's Textbook of Psychology as "excoriating reviews of bad science/studies”.
Follow Simon on Twitter
Like Simon on Facebook
Follow Simon on Google+
Subscribe via Email
Subscribe via RSS
Contact Simon directly by Email
According to a new study, 43 percent of the U.S. population wrongly believes that the flu vaccine can give you flu. In reality, this is not the case — any adverse reaction, besides a temperature and aching muscles for a short time, is rare. It stands to reason that correcting this misconception would be a good move for public health, but the study by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler published in Vaccine found that debunking this false belief had a seriously counterproductive effect.
The researchers looked at 822 American adults who were selected to reflect the general population in terms of their mix of age, gender, race, and education. About a quarter of this sample was unduly concerned about the side effects of the flu vaccine. It was among these individuals that attempting to correct the myth that the flu vaccine gives you flu backfired. The researchers showed participants information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), which was designed to debunk the myth that the flu vaccine can give you flu. This resulted in a fall in people's false beliefs, but, among those concerned with vaccine side effects, it also resulted in a paradoxical decline in their intentions to actually get vaccinated, from 46 percent to 28 percent. The intervention had no effect on intentions to get vaccinated amongst people who didn't have high levels of concerns about vaccine side effects in the first place.
Why is it that, as false beliefs went down, so did intentions to vaccinate? The explanation suggested by the researchers is that the participants who had "high concerns about vaccine side effects brought other concerns to mind in an attempt to maintain their prior attitude when presented with corrective information." A psychological principle that might explain this behavior is motivated reasoning: We are often open to persuasion when it comes to information that fits with our beliefs, while we are more critical or even outright reject information that contradicts our worldview.
This is not the first time that vaccine safety information has been found to backfire. Last year, the same team of researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing messages from the CDC aiming to promote the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The researchers found that debunking myths about MMR and autism had a similarly counterproductive result — reducing some false beliefs, but also ironically reducing intentions to vaccinate.
Taken together, the results suggest that in terms of directly improving vaccination rates, we may be better off doing nothing than using the current boilerplate CDC information on misconceptions about vaccines to debunk false beliefs. If this is the case, then the ramifications for public health are huge, but before we can decide whether this conclusion is accurate, we'll have to wait to see if the finding can be replicated elsewhere. History has taught us that when it comes to vaccines, acting on scant evidence can have catastrophic consequences.
The studies do have their limitations: Both looked at intentions to vaccinate rather than actual vaccination rates, which may be different in practice. Furthermore, in both sets of experiments, only the official US CDC vaccine safety messages were used. It is possible that if the experiments were repeated with other wordings, perhaps those used by the NHS in the UK for example, we would see different results.
If the backfire effect is replicated in future studies, how should we proceed? Research into the backfire effect can provide some tentative suggestions. To begin with, it is likely we should avoid restating myths wherever possible and when we must restate myths, we should try to precede the myth with a warning that misleading information is coming up. This can help prevent myths from growing in our minds through mere familiarity. When we debunk myths, we should also try to offer an alternative explanation for false beliefs, to fill the gap left by misinformation. We should also try to keep our explanations brief, which can help counter the imbalance that often occurs between simple, memorable myths and the more complicated reality. What is clear from the recent findings regarding beliefs about vaccines and the recent outbreaks in vaccine-preventable diseases in the UK, the US, and elsewhere, is that what we are currently doing to try to convince people to get vaccinated — may no longer be working.
This article was originally published in the British Psychological Society Research Digest. For more on the backfire effect, check out my previous investigation into the Backfire Effect.
Follow Neurobonkers on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, RSS, or join the mailing list. Image Credit: Shutterstock.
References
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information Vaccine, 33 (3), 459-464 DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017
Brendan Nyhan, Jason Reifler, Sean Richey, & Gary L. Freed (2014). Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial PEDIATRICS, 133 (4) DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-2365d
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Seifert, C., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13 (3), 106-131 DOI:10.1177/1529100612451018
How does alcohol affect your brain?
Explore how alcohol affects your brain, from the first sip at the bar to life-long drinking habits.
- Alcohol is the world's most popular drug and has been a part of human culture for at least 9,000 years.
- Alcohol's effects on the brain range from temporarily limiting mental activity to sustained brain damage, depending on levels consumed and frequency of use.
- Understanding how alcohol affects your brain can help you determine what drinking habits are best for you.
Scientists sequence the genome of this threatened species
If you want to know what makes a Canadian lynx a Canadian lynx a team of DNA sequencers has figured that out.
- A team at UMass Amherst recently sequenced the genome of the Canadian lynx.
- It's part of a project intending to sequence the genome of every vertebrate in the world.
- Conservationists interested in the Canadian lynx have a new tool to work with.
If you want to know what makes a Canadian lynx a Canadian lynx, I can now—as of this month—point you directly to the DNA of a Canadian lynx, and say, "That's what makes a lynx a lynx." The genome was sequenced by a team at UMass Amherst, and it's one of 15 animals whose genomes have been sequenced by the Vertebrate Genomes Project, whose stated goal is to sequence the genome of all 66,000 vertebrate species in the world.
Sequencing the genome of a particular species of an animal is important in terms of preserving genetic diversity. Future generations don't necessarily have to worry about our memory of the Canadian Lynx warping the way hearsay warped perception a long time ago.
Artwork: Guillaume le Clerc / Wikimedia Commons
13th-century fantastical depiction of an elephant.
It is easy to see how one can look at 66,000 genomic sequences stored away as being the analogous equivalent of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. It is a potential tool for future conservationists.
But what are the practicalities of sequencing the genome of a lynx beyond engaging with broad bioethical questions? As the animal's habitat shrinks and Earth warms, the Canadian lynx is demonstrating less genetic diversity. Cross-breeding with bobcats in some portions of the lynx's habitat also represents a challenge to the lynx's genetic makeup. The two themselves are also linked: warming climates could drive Canadian lynxes to cross-breed with bobcats.
John Organ, chief of the U.S. Geological Survey's Cooperative Fish and Wildlife units, said to MassLive that the results of the sequencing "can help us look at land conservation strategies to help maintain lynx on the landscape."
What does DNA have to do with land conservation strategies? Consider the fact that the food found in a landscape, the toxins found in a landscape, or the exposure to drugs can have an impact on genetic activity. That potential change can be transmitted down the generative line. If you know exactly how a lynx's DNA is impacted by something, then the environment they occupy can be fine-tuned to meet the needs of the lynx and any other creature that happens to inhabit that particular portion of the earth.
Given that the Trump administration is considering withdrawing protection for the Canadian lynx, a move that caught scientists by surprise, it is worth having as much information on hand as possible for those who have an interest in preserving the health of this creature—all the way down to the building blocks of a lynx's life.
Why cauliflower is perfect for the keto diet
The exploding popularity of the keto diet puts a less used veggie into the spotlight.
- The cauliflower is a vegetable of choice if you're on the keto diet.
- The plant is low in carbs and can replace potatoes, rice and pasta.
- It can be eaten both raw and cooked for different benefits.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.