case 001 failure mode · overgeneralization truth, evidence, knowledge, and information

Does repeating misinformation in a correction make it more believable?

finding

Target-comparable backfire appears in some tested formats and contexts, while replications and later studies also report counterevidence. The record does not warrant a blanket rule against repeating misinformation inside corrections, and the causal mechanism remains unresolved.the reading under commons-balanced-v0.1 · not a finished answer

Encyclopedia Skeptical

Open the evidence docket read as markdown review receipt

the count · lineage, not paper titles

25 works · 86 exact spans · dossier 001

10apparent support assertionssound like support

4^+1?target-comparable support rootsparticipant-data roots · one lineage unresolved

12counterevidence data rootsfailed replications and later studies

Ten source assertions sound like support. Four target-comparable participant-data roots do. Open the count to inspect the exact editions, shared programs, failed replications, and the unresolved data lineage.

still open

The unpublished 2007 Skurnik, Yoon, and Schwarz flu-flyer manuscript remains unavailable. One support root stays unresolved until it can be read.

evidence record · roots, not echoes

3 of 17 roots · illustrative rows, replace with the dossier's

rootsource · exact spanrelation

R-01

Skurnik, Yoon, Park & Schwarz (2005) · JCR 31(4)

Warnings of false claims backfire after a delay; older adults misremember warned claims as true. Exact span pinned, edition resolved.

support · target-comparable

R-07

Skurnik, Yoon & Schwarz (2007) · unpublished

The flu-flyer manuscript cited by ten downstream assertions. Not available for span pinning.

unresolved lineage

R-11

Ecker, Hogan & Lewandowsky (2017) · JARMAC 6(2)

Reminders of the misinformation in a correction did not backfire; explicit repetition improved correction effectiveness.

counterevidence · data root

Relations are policy-relative. Ten repetitions of one root count as one root.

how this reading was compiled

three operations · in order

1 · trace

Pin the edition and exact passage behind each claim

Every assertion resolves to a source span, not a paper title.

2 · collapse

Follow lineage so ten repetitions of one root still count as one root

Dependence between apparently independent reports is recorded, not assumed away.

3 · apply

Compile a reading under a named policy

Rules, limits, and the alternative lens stay visible. Switch the lens above to see the skeptical reading of the same record.

build receipt · reproduce this projection

compiler epistemedia/0.2.0

dossier: 4339d6d6d52b9b534d2e63c95f52ff3cf90be5264f567762f47bab9af4d945a7
view policy: em:application-policy:encyclopedia-v0.1
catalog: abe33f18ad3c11bf8f7f46f2420bea4e24c057add5d810f8861f85ab471c8da5
frontier: 66536b5b3be28f5735f65db1167fa6f9dd3716063e75910646ac4805c932057c
accepted commit: ff07f73e95953688ce2d2cb1f5cffd9189fb17f6
epistemic policy: commons-balanced-v0.1
disclosure policy: public-noninterference-v0.1
content digest: 9845d5f1c4f10059be1f2c134a1c103232ce99b592713e781c44e67ae30c2be7