APA Citation
Nyhan, B. (2020). Facts and Myths about Misperceptions. *Journal of Economic Perspectives*, 34(3), 220-236.
Summary
Nyhan's research examines how correcting false information can sometimes backfire, making people cling more strongly to misconceptions. His work demonstrates that people often resist facts that challenge their existing beliefs, even when presented with clear evidence. The study reveals how cognitive biases and motivated reasoning influence information processing, particularly when facts threaten one's worldview or identity. This research has significant implications for understanding how survivors process conflicting information about their experiences and relationships.
Why This Matters for Survivors
For survivors of narcissistic abuse, this research validates the difficulty of accepting reality about their experiences. It explains why friends, family, or even survivors themselves may resist acknowledging abuse patterns despite clear evidence. Understanding these psychological mechanisms helps normalize the complex journey of recognition and recovery, showing that resistance to painful truths is a natural human response.
What This Research Establishes
Fact-checking can backfire when it challenges core beliefs, making people more entrenched in their original misconceptions rather than accepting corrective information.
Motivated reasoning drives selective information processing, where people unconsciously filter and interpret facts to support their existing worldview and psychological investments.
Identity-protective cognition influences belief persistence, as people resist information that threatens their sense of self or understanding of important relationships.
Simple exposure to correct information is insufficient for belief change, particularly when the stakes are high and the correction challenges fundamental assumptions about reality.
Why This Matters for Survivors
This research provides crucial validation for survivors struggling to understand why their reality was dismissed or denied by others. When you tried to share evidence of abuse with family members or friends, their resistance wasn’t necessarily about you or the strength of your evidence—it was about fundamental psychological processes that make humans resist threatening information.
The findings also normalize your own journey of recognition. If you found yourself making excuses for abusive behavior or struggling to accept the reality of your situation, this wasn’t weakness or failure. Research shows that our minds naturally protect us from information that would require painful restructuring of our beliefs and relationships.
Understanding these mechanisms can help you approach conversations about your experiences differently. Rather than feeling frustrated when others don’t immediately accept your reality, you can recognize that belief change is a complex process that often requires time, repeated exposure, and emotional safety.
This knowledge empowers you to be patient with your own healing journey. Recovery involves gradually accepting difficult truths, and research confirms that this process naturally includes resistance, setbacks, and the need for supportive environments where new understandings can safely develop.
Clinical Implications
Therapists working with abuse survivors need to understand that client resistance to recognizing abuse patterns isn’t pathological but reflects normal psychological processes. Pushing too hard with corrective information about relationship dynamics may actually strengthen client defenses and increase therapeutic rupture risk.
Treatment approaches should account for motivated reasoning by creating safe spaces where clients can gradually explore alternative interpretations of their experiences. Rather than directly challenging denial, therapists can use gentle inquiry and validation to reduce the psychological threat associated with acknowledging painful realities.
Family therapy and couples work requires particular sensitivity to these dynamics. When one partner discloses abuse, the other party’s denial or minimization may reflect identity-protective cognition rather than deliberate manipulation. Interventions need to address the psychological safety required for belief change.
Psychoeducation about cognitive biases can be therapeutically valuable, helping both survivors and their support networks understand why recognizing and acknowledging abuse is psychologically challenging. This knowledge reduces shame and self-blame while normalizing the complex process of reality acceptance.
How This Research Is Used in the Book
Nyhan’s findings illuminate why survivors often face disbelief and why their own recognition process can be so difficult. The research helps explain the psychological mechanisms behind the common experience of being told “that’s not abuse” or “you’re overreacting.”
“When Sarah finally gathered the courage to tell her mother about the emotional abuse, she was devastated by the response: ‘He’s always been so charming to us. Are you sure you’re not being too sensitive?’ Nyhan’s research reveals that this wasn’t cruelty—it was her mother’s mind protecting itself from information that would shatter her understanding of the family dynamics she had always believed were healthy.”
Historical Context
Published during an era of intense focus on misinformation and polarization, Nyhan’s 2020 analysis synthesized decades of research on belief persistence and correction effectiveness. The work emerged from growing recognition that simply providing accurate information is insufficient for changing minds, particularly when those beliefs serve psychological functions beyond mere accuracy. This research has profound implications for understanding not just political beliefs, but personal relationships and trauma recognition.
Further Reading
• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94(2), 211-228.
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Harvard University Press.
About the Author
Brendan Nyhan is Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and co-director of Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan effort to monitor democratic practices. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University and is widely recognized for his research on misinformation, motivated reasoning, and political behavior. His work has been published in leading academic journals and has influenced understanding of how people process challenging information across various contexts.
Historical Context
Published in 2020, this research emerged during a period of intense focus on misinformation and fact-checking effectiveness. The findings challenged conventional wisdom about information correction, revealing the complex psychology behind belief persistence even when faced with contradictory evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Research shows that correcting misinformation can sometimes backfire because people have psychological investments in their existing beliefs, leading to motivated reasoning and selective information processing.
Cognitive biases can make it difficult for survivors to accept evidence of abuse, as acknowledging the reality threatens their worldview and sense of safety in the relationship.
People often resist information that challenges their understanding of someone they know, using motivated reasoning to maintain their existing beliefs about relationships and family dynamics.
The backfire effect occurs when correcting false information actually strengthens people's adherence to misconceptions, particularly when the correction threatens their identity or worldview.
Understanding that resistance to painful truths is normal can help survivors be patient with themselves and others, while seeking support from trained professionals who understand trauma dynamics.
Survivors may resist acknowledging abuse patterns because accepting the reality would require restructuring their entire understanding of the relationship and themselves.
Motivated reasoning leads people to interpret information in ways that support their desired conclusions, such as explaining away red flags or minimizing abusive behaviors.
Research shows that simply presenting facts about abuse may not be effective if those facts challenge others' existing beliefs about the abuser or the relationship dynamics.