পদ্ধতির তুলনা করুন

	Misinformation Correction Experiment	Elite Cue Experiment
ক্ষেত্র	রাজনৈতিক মনোবিজ্ঞান	রাজনৈতিক মনোবিজ্ঞান
পরিবার	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
উদ্ভবের বছর	2010	1992
প্রবর্তক	Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler	John Zaller; Stephen Nicholson
ধরন	Survey experiment on factual correction	Survey experiment on source cues
মৌলিক উৎস	Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.	Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9780521407861
অপর নাম	Fact-Check Correction Experiment, Misperception Correction Design, Backfire Effect Experiment, Belief Updating Correction Study	Party Cue Experiment, Source Cue Persuasion Experiment, Partisan Endorsement Cue Design, Elite Endorsement Experiment
সম্পর্কিত	3	3
সারসংক্ষেপ	A misinformation correction experiment tests whether a factual correction can reduce belief in a political misperception. In Nyhan and Reifler's influential 2010 design, all respondents read a misleading claim and a random subset also read a correction, after which their factual beliefs are measured. Their alarming finding was a backfire effect: for some groups, corrections increased rather than decreased misperceptions among those ideologically threatened by the fact. Later large-scale replications by Wood and Porter found backfire to be rare and corrections generally effective, making this design a case study in how political psychology refines a striking result through replication.	An elite cue experiment isolates the persuasive power of source endorsements by holding a policy message constant and randomly varying who is said to support it. Grounded in John Zaller's receive-accept-sample model of mass opinion, which holds that citizens take cues from trusted political elites rather than reasoning from first principles, the design reveals how much opinion moves simply because a party or leader takes a side. Stephen Nicholson's work on polarizing cues shows that in-party endorsements can persuade while out-party endorsements provoke backlash, making the cue, not the argument, the engine of opinion change.