The backfire effect is a cognitive bias that influences how we react to evidence that contradicts our existing beliefs

How does fake news shape beliefs?

Why do facts not change opinions?

There is a general misconception that by presenting facts and figures that contradict a person’s existing beliefs we can change their opinion. Hilary Clinton certainly tried this approach but she failed to win sufficient voters over to become president elect.  Why does this happen and how does fake news influence our beliefs?

The backfire effect is a psychological bias which is a tendency for people to reject evidence that contradicts deeply held beliefs and as a result our opinions become even more entrenched than before we received the new information.   This may explain why the attacks on Trump’s suitability to become president appeared to have no impact on his popularity among his core supporters.

What causes the backfire effect?

The experience of receiving evidence that is inconsistent with our beliefs causes cognitive dissonance. This makes us feel very uncomfortable and as a defence mechanism our brain creates new memories and neural connections that further strengthen existing beliefs to dismiss the new information and eliminate cognitive dissonance. Over time we also become less sceptical of those ideas that support our beliefs which are often the very same concepts that may be incorrect.

Evidence:

In 2006, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler (PDF), two leading researchers of political science, created fake newspaper articles on politically sensitive issues. They were written in a way that would support a widespread misconception about a specific idea in US politics.

Once a person had read the fake article they were given an authentic article which outlined a more accurate view of the story. One fake article for instance indicated that the US had found weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. The genuine article clearly stated that the US never found such weapons in Iraq.

Participants who had been opposed to the war or who held strong liberal attitudes tended to disagree with the fake story and accepted the second article. However, those who supported the war and held more conservative beliefs tended to accept the accuracy of the fake article and strongly disagreed with the second post. Further, after reading the authentic article which stated there we no WMDs ever found, conservative leaning participants indicated that they were even more certain than before that Iraq had held WMDs.

Did fake news help Trump?

Emotional factors played a big part in the outcome of the US presidential election.

Research by Ipsos suggests the backfire effect is especially problematic when fake or incorrect news is circulated in the public domain. The danger here is our tendency to be more likely to accept something as true the more times we are exposed to the same information (see Availability Cascade).

During the 2016 US election fake news stories circulated on Facebook and other social media platforms. The Ipsos survey found that fake news headlines were accepted as true by those who were exposed to them around 75% of the time.

Further, people who gave Facebook as their major news source were more likely to perceive fake news headlines as genuine stories compared to those who were less reliant on the social media platform.  This dispels the myth that people can tell what is genuine information on Facebook.

“The 2016 election may mark the point in modern political history when information and disinformation became a dominant electoral currency,” – Chris Jackson of Ipsos Public Affairs

Republican leaning voters were more likely than Democrats to accept fake news as being accurate (84% compared to 71%). Similarly Clinton voters were less likely than Trump voters to perceive fake news as being true (58% compared to 86% for Trump voters).

This is probably because most top-performing  fake headlines during the campaign were pro-Trump or critical of Clinton. This would support the backfire effect being triggered by the fake news stories. It is also worrying that a majority of Clinton voters who saw the fake news stories considered them to be very or somewhat accurate.

 Did fake news influence Brexit?

Image of the UK Leave campaign website

Similar allegations have been made about the UK European referendum. According to a source at the BBC the Leave campaign in particular tended to submit statement of debatable accuracy either very late of very early in the day in order to get them communicated in morning new programmes. They understood though that amendments or having to retract inaccurate stories would only occur later in the day and by then the content was already circulating and had done its job.

Conclusion:

The human brain instinctively and unconsciously protects your beliefs from harm when confronted with information that is inconsistent with those same beliefs. It does this by making those beliefs even stronger and so more resistant to change.

The danger here is that fake news stories will inevitably lead to  beliefs that don’t stand up to rational scrutiny becoming more entrenched. This could result in even more polarised positions for the two camps in American politics.  Whether fake new stories were the difference between Trump  winning or losing the US election is impossible to know. However, as most fake news was supportive of Trump it is possible that it had an insidious influence.

Marketing Implications:

Clinton should have avoided attacking Trump on a personal level as this just reinforced his supporter’s beliefs about both candidates.  The Democrats would have been better to focus on how they could persuade the undecided voters and engage Clinton’s own supporters.

The learning here is don’t try changing people’s deeply held beliefs as they won’t respond to rational argument. For marketers this suggests changing habits (e.g. a free trial) or using an emotional trigger to engage competitor’s customers.

However, the backfire effect indicates that marketers should concentrate on trying to win over people who don’t have strong beliefs that run counter to their argument. This means running a positive campaign that projects both emotional and rational benefits. Inspire people rather than attacking your competitors as the latter is likely to be counterproductive.

Thank you for reading my post and if you found it useful please share using the social media icons on the page.

 

Related posts:

EU Referendum – Why emotions won over logic?

Brexit campaign – 7 marketing lessons from the Brexit campaigns.

Referendum – Are referendum a device of dictators and demagogues? 

US opinion polls – Why did the polls get it wrong again?

You can view my full Digital Marketing and Optimization Toolbox here.

To browse links to all my posts on one page please click here.

  • Neal has had articles published on website optimisation on Usabilla.com  and as an ex-research and insight manager on the GreenBook Blog research website.  If you wish to contact Neal please send an email to neal.cole@outlook.com. You can follow Neal on Twitter @northresearch, check out the Conversion Uplift  Facebook page or connect on LinkedIn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *