The Backfire Effect

Subsection Summary: Religious skepticism staged a dramatic comeback in the form of a wave of revivalism.

[can we] amplify that unbiased processing to overcome the partisan blindness” (1)? The answer is: inconclusive. It’s very hard to change one’s mind. Through many studies, this fact continues to reveal itself. Scientists have attempted to use logos and pathos to convince people of a fact, proving ineffective. They found that presenting the opposing facts actually made people feel more strongly about their incorrect opposition. However, it has been proven that bribing a democrat or republican to answer correctly with as little as one to two dollars drastically decreases the partisan gap when asked a question. The second most promising method is taking it out of politics. Relating it back to their values and them as people makes partisans think of themselves as themselves rather than as a partisan. Resnick talks about a study in which the administrator used this method, and it was reported that an open-mindedness and willingness to address the opposition continued

The lies people tell themselves are perhaps the most powerful tool on the planet. They can convince themselves of nearly anything, no matter how foolish. Something as far-fetched as winning the heart of a married woman or achieving great wealth can seem within reach to true believers. The problem arises when these lies inevitably come back to the truth. When societal expectations feed people a great illusion, it only hurts the longer they believe it.

In “Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds”, written by Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker staff writer explains significance of the well-known psychological phenomenon: confirmation bias. As its name implies, confirmation bias is “the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them” (Kolbert 4). The first section of the article is served as a simple introduction to the article with studies proving “facts don’t change our minds.” In both studies, contestants were tricked into believing deceptive information.

Frontline: Prisoners of Silence 1.) Confirmation Bias is when someone has “high hopes” for something to turn out the way they want, that, in their mind, it comes true (Google, 2017). One example would be playing with an Ouija board. 2.) Parents whose children were/are autistic wanted so badly for the process to work that they believed it.

Although the book lacked explanation, it seemed as though the book was only written to those in the same academic field. He does an admirable job in establishing new diversities in millennial Christians. Barkum’s research, similar to Dean and Farrell, indicates the American public lacks the ability to distinguishing the real from the fictional which easily accessible through social media. The rise of skeptical society discussed by Ferrell includes more detailed account. Despite the fact that Barkum and Dean’s argument is similar as they both argue the link used between the “action and event controlled by reason or irrationality that empowers reason with its undeniable coercive force.” Hence, the book does not go hand in hand with other cultural conspiracy historians; despite the similarity of research result the perception applied varies.

“Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory” was located by searching 'memory malleability' on Google Scholar. The article is written by Elizabeth F. Loftus, an expert in the field. Loftus summarizes research conducted by herself and others, with an aim to identify who is susceptible, what events increase susceptibility, can warnings reduce

A domino effect: the consequence of one event setting off a chain of similar events; history is full of them. In 1914, countries around the world began to become involved in one of the most well-known wars in history, World War I. There is not just one single cause to this “Great War”, which could have been avoided, rather there are multiple. During this time tensions were high, especially after the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife. Austria-Hungary, fueled with anger towards Serbia for the killings, saw this act as an opportunity to teach Serbia a lesson and eliminate any future Serbian threats. However this was an age of alliances, fighting one country also meant war with

Religious faith is the foundation of many humans within society. Conviction in one’s religion allows a sense of security to creep into one’s mind. Shaking the tree trunk of conviction compromises the integrity of each idea that’s branching off and blooming on its own. Within two weeks, my tree trunk was almost completely chopped down and thrown into the wood chipper.

Belief perseverance is the act of resisting change in our ideas and beliefs once they have been created. When there is evidence that leads us to believe in something, it is very hard to shift away from that belief despite any contradictory information about our original views (Nisbitt & Ross, 1980). Belief perseverance interferes with critical

In Cross’s opinion, she believes people are bamboozled by propaganda because they fail to recognize when they experience it (248). The thirteen propaganda methods Cross describes in this essay include the following: Name-Calling, Glittering Generalities, Plain-Folks Appeal, Arguementum Ad Populum (Stroking),

An example of the backfire effect is a study which was done Brendan Nyhan, of Dartmouth University, and Jason Reifler, of the University of Exeter, examined the Obama is a Muslim myth, Nyhan and Reifler showed the participants a video of Obama saying that he was Christian. The participants responses varied but were mostly around the same response: “the correction—uttered in this case by the president himself—often backfired in the study, making belief in the falsehood that Obama is a Muslim worse among certain study participants.” this shows that the backfire effect allows for people to not only deny facts but for them also to strengthen their own beliefs (Mooney). The backfire effect is a very powerful effect that can lead to misconceptions among people who are faced with facts but deny them so that they may keep hold of their beliefs. The backfire effect is used often on social media because you may see many things that you disagree with and instead of getting that information to change your mind you will instinctively deny

Many people consider science and religion to be at loggerheads. Other people consider religions and science to be completely unrelated and different facets. The idea that many people have is that science seems to be more popular than the legions since it is based on facts while religion is based on perceptions. However, what many people fail to realize is that science is not the only source of facts, and religion has been effective in reaching out beyond the realms of morals and values. Indeed, science and religions rely on one another in examining and explaining the things that happens in the daily lives of individuals. Although the views of religion and science have been more or less distinct, there are several ways in which science and religions come together. This paper reviews

The Backfire effects are a series of noted psychological phenomena in which the correction of an incorrect worldview often has the opposite effect on a target audience. Instead of accepting their views as incorrect, the target group holds their beliefs more firmly. The Confirmation bias is an effect where an individual’s desires have an effect on their beliefs. The need to be correct is so strong within that individual that they will look for and retain information that reinforces what they already believe. The confirmation bias strengthens the backfire effect.

McGuire and Papageogis proposed forewarning targets of the persuasive intent of a message might produce inhibition of persuasion through counter arguments (1962p127AAC). Hass and Gracly, found that this is only particularly effective if there is a time delay between warning and message which allows for cognitive processes to actively generate a counter-argument (1975). Thus, if the target were perhaps familiar with the door-in-the-face technique or simply inferred a second request may be likely, and there was a delay between the unrealistic and realist request, the persuasion attempt is likely to be inhibited.