ArticleMemory & cognition2021
Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of WhatsApp based debunking reminders on follow-up visit attendance for individuals with hypertension: a randomized controlled trial in India.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Prior beliefs & automated fact checking: Limits on the effectiveness of AI-based corrections.PloS one · 2026Article
- Countering AI-generated misinformation with pre-emptive source discreditation and debunking.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Does source reliability moderate the survival processing effect? The role of linguistic markers as reliability cues.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Causal information changes how we reason: a mixed-methods analysis of decision-making with causal information.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
- Did he or didn't he? Mixed evidence for the continued influence of retracted misinformation on person impressions.PloS one · 2025Article
- Componential modeling of argumentative essay writing from multiple online sources: a Bayesian network approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The Effect of Correcting Neuromyths on Students' and Teachers' Later Reasoning.Journal of Intelligence · 2024Article
- Fluid intelligence but not need for cognition is associated with attitude change in response to the correction of misinformation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Investigating the role of source and source trust in prebunks and debunks of misinformation in online experiments across four EU countries.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Discrediting health disinformation sources: Advantages of highlighting low expertise.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2024Article
- Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Cancer: A model topic for misinformation researchers.Current opinion in psychology · 2024Review
- The Feasibility of Using the National PulsePoint Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Responder Network to Facilitate Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
- Source-credibility information and social norms improve truth discernment and reduce engagement with misinformation online.Scientific reports · 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
- Effective mitigation of the belief perseverance bias after the retraction of misinformation: Awareness training and counter-speech.PloS one · 2023Article
- Understanding the role of fear of missing out and deficient self-regulation in sharing of deepfakes on social media: Evidence from eight countries.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
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
The continued influence effect refers to the finding that people often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning even if the information has been retracted. The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of a retraction is determined by its credibility. In particular, we aimed to scrutinize previous findings suggesting that perceived trustworthiness but not perceived expertise of the retraction source determines a retraction's effectiveness, and that continued influence arises only if a retraction is not believed. In two experiments, we found that source trustworthiness but not source expertise indeed influences retraction effectiveness, with retractions from low-trustworthiness sources entirely ineffective. We also found that retraction belief is indeed a predictor of continued reliance on misinformation, but that substantial continued influence effects can still occur with retractions designed to be and rated as highly credible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.