So sánh phương pháp

	Misinformation Correction Experiment	Partisan Motivated Reasoning Paradigm
Lĩnh vực	Tâm lý học chính trị	Tâm lý học chính trị
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	2010	2006
Người khởi xướng	Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler	Charles Taber & Milton Lodge
Loại	Survey experiment on factual correction	Experimental paradigm for directional reasoning
Công trình gốc	Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.	Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.
Tên gọi khác	Fact-Check Correction Experiment, Misperception Correction Design, Backfire Effect Experiment, Belief Updating Correction Study	Motivated Skepticism Paradigm, Directional Motivated Reasoning Design, Disconfirmation Bias Experiment, Partisan Bias Information-Processing Paradigm
Liên quan	3	3
Tóm tắt	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.	The partisan motivated reasoning paradigm is the experimental template for showing that citizens process political information to protect their existing loyalties rather than to reach accurate conclusions. In Taber and Lodge's foundational 2006 design, partisans who read balanced pro and con arguments rated congenial arguments as stronger, spent effort counterarguing uncongenial ones, sought out confirming information, and ended up more extreme than they began. Martin Bisgaard's later work extends the logic to facts, showing that even when partisans accept the same factual reality they reinterpret who deserves credit or blame, so getting the facts right can paradoxically fuel rather than dampen partisan reasoning.