ArticleMemory & cognition2020
Failure to accept retractions: A contribution to the continued influence effect.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Did he or didn't he? Mixed evidence for the continued influence of retracted misinformation on person impressions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Continued influence of false accusations in forming impressions of political candidates.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- The 'Glasgow effect': the controversial cultural life of a public health term.Medical humanities · 2024Article
- Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
- Combining refutations and social norms increases belief change.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Does explaining the origins of misinformation improve the effectiveness of a given correction?Memory & cognition · 2023Article
- Misinformation and the Sins of Memory: False-Belief Formation and Limits on Belief Revision.Journal of applied research in memory and cognition · 2022Article
- Investigation of the determinants for misinformation correction effectiveness on social media during COVID-19 pandemic.Information processing & management · 2022Article
- Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.PloS one · 2022Article
- Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
- Exploring factors that mitigate the continued influence of misinformation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
- Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect.Memory & cognition · 2021Article
- Timing matters when correcting fake news.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Is it smart to read on your phone? The impact of reading format and culture on the continued influence of misinformation.Memory & cognition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has shown that when information about a narrative event is retracted, people continue to use that information even though it has been explicitly identified as incorrect. Not only can this occur for implicitly inferred information, but also when the change is stated explicitly. The current study explored whether this effect reflects, at least in part, an unwillingness of some readers to accept changes to their understanding. Experiment 1 assessed this using a continued influence effect paradigm with an additional probe asking whether participants believed the explicitly stated change. Most did not. Those that did accept it showed evidence of a reduced use of the incorrect information, while those that did not accept it performed similarly to those who received no correction (control). Experiment 2 included an additional explicit instruction that participants could say "don't know" if they were unsure of how to respond. The pattern of results was largely the same as for Experiment 1. Experiment 3 modified the alternative account to increase plausibility, and added two additional stories/question sets to ensure effects were not limited to one set of materials. A greater number of participants found the retractions believable than in Experiments 1 and 2. Nonetheless, a similar pattern of results was found. Overall, these findings suggest that at least some of the evidence for the continued use of retracted information may be due to some people not accepting the retraction, even in the absence of external motivation to disregard it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31317393What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.