Skip to main content

Table 1 Contrasts run in Experiment 1

From: Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect

dV/hypothesis Effect tested F(1,367) P
False-claim inference scores
H1FIS: NE < FCO Familiarity backfire effect 5.31 .022a
 H2FIS: NE < CO Illusory truth effect 2.72 .100
 H3FIS: CFC < CO Effect of claim+correction vs. claim-only 2.73 .099
 H4FIS: NE > CFC Effect of claim+correction vs. baseline 0.01 .941
False-claim belief ratings
 H1FBR: NE < FCO Familiarity backfire effect <  0.01 .971
 H2FBR: NE < CO Illusory truth effect 3.03 .082
 H3FBR: CFC < CO Effect of claim+correction vs. claim-only 13.75 <.001a
 H4FBR: NE > CFC Effect of claim+correction vs. baseline 4.78 .029
True-claim inference scores
 H1TIS: NE < FCO Effect of affirmation vs. baseline 36.09 <.001a
 H2TIS: NE < CO Illusory truth effect 4.23 .041a
 H3TIS: CFC > CO Effect of claim+affirmation vs. claim-only 9.40 .002a
True-claim belief ratings
 H1TBR: NE < FCO Effect of affirmation vs. baseline 82.84 <.001a
 H2TBR: NE < CO Illusory truth effect 5.32 .022a
 H3TBR: CFC > CO Effect of claim+affirmation vs. claim-only 30.95 <.001a
  1. Note. Hypotheses are numbered H1–4 (primary hypothesis in bold; see text for details); subscripts FIS, TIS, FBR, and TBR refer to false-claim and true-claim inference scores and belief ratings, respectively. Conditions are NE no-exposure; CO claim-only; FCO fact-check-only; CFC claim-plus-fact-check. aindicates statistical significance (for secondary contrasts: after Holm-Bonferroni correction)