Table 4.
Results from Bayesian analyses across Experiments 1–3
| 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 |
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