Skip to main content

Table 4 Results from Bayesian analyses across Experiments 1–3

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

dV

Effect direction

BF10

Experiment 1

 FIS

NE < FCO (familiarity backfire)

2.801

 FBR

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.154a

Experiment 2

 FISd

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.135a

 FBRd

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.363

Experiment 3

 FISl-

NE > FCO (corrective effect)

11.757b

 FBRl-

NE > FCO (corrective effect)

3.065a

 FISl+

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.135a

 FBRl+

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.774

Experiments 1–3

 FIS(l-)

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.104a

 FBR(l-)

NE > FCO (corrective effect)

1.799

 FIS(l+)

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.112a

 FBR(l+)

NE = FCO (no familiarity backfire)

0.760

  1. Note. FIS and FBR: false-claim inference scores and belief ratings from the delayed test. As test delay was manipulated in Experiment 2, only the delayed-test variables (FISd and FBRd) were entered into analysis. No-load (FISl-; FBRl-) and load (FISl+; FBRl+) conditions of Experiment 3 were included in separate analysis of Experiment 3, and also in separate conjoint analyses. The condition factor includes only conditions NE (no-exposure) and FCO (fact-check-only). aindicates substantial and bindicates strong evidence for or against the null