I have an op-ed in the New York Times today on myths about health care reform — here’s how it begins:

At the White House signing ceremony for health care legislation on Tuesday, President Obama declared, “In a few moments, when I sign this bill, all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform.” For Democrats nervous about political fallout from the bill in the November midterm elections, it’s reassuring to imagine that the myths about the legislation — that it provides free coverage to illegal immigrants, uses taxpayer money to subsidize abortions and mandates end-of-life counseling for the elderly — will be dispelled by its passage.

But public knowledge of the plan’s contents may not improve as quickly as Democrats hope. While some of the more outlandish rumors may dissipate, it is likely that misperceptions will linger for years, hindering substantive debate over the merits of the country’s new health care system. The reasons are rooted in human psychology.

The piece discusses a forthcoming article in Political Behavior on correcting misperceptions that I co-authored with Jason Reifler — here’s the abstract:

An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

Update 3/25 10:38 AM: Per PM’s comment below, here’s President Obama expressing the claim referenced in the op-ed that personal experience will change people’s perceptions of reform:

And now that this legislation is passed, you don’t have to take my word for it. You’ll be able to see it in your own lives. I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon. Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We’ll look around –- (laughter) — and we’ll see. (Applause.) You don’t have to take my word for it. (Applause.)

Update 3/26 3:12 PM: My friend Chris Mooney comments on his blog:

Nyhan goes on to talk about how we ideologically filter information to support our political presuppositions–e.g., conservatives will hold on to lies about “death panels” long after the bill’s passage.

It’s a great piece, but it is missing, I think, an important angle. I believe the Internet makes this problem of misinformation and ideological filtering a lot, a lot worse. I wonder what Nyhan would say to that.

I agree completely — increased media choice allows people to more easily avoid information they don’t want to hear. There wasn’t room to discuss it in the op-ed, but I have a longer academic piece coming out soon that discusses this issue in somewhat more detail.

[Note: I’ve removed an update responding to Paul Waldmann and posted it separately above.]