ArticlePloS one2025
Did he or didn't he? Mixed evidence for the continued influence of retracted misinformation on person impressions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retracted misinformation often continues to influence event-related reasoning, but there is mixed evidence that it influences person impressions. A recent study found no evidence for the continued influence of retracted misinformation on person impressions across four experiments. However, the study used a dynamic impression-rating measure that may have obscured any continued influence effects. Here we report three experiments that tested for the continued influence of retracted misinformation on person impressions using a non-dynamic impression-formation task that is comparable to tasks used in event-related misinformation research. Participants formed an impression of a fictitious person based on a series of behaviour statements. A negative behaviour statement (e.g., "John kicked his pet dog hard in the head when it didn't come when called") was subsequently retracted or not retracted. Evidence for the continued influence of the retracted behaviour statement was found in one experiment; in the other two experiments the retracted misinformation was fully discounted. The mixed findings indicate that, unlike retracted event-related misinformation, retracted person-related misinformation does not consistently show a continued influence effect. Future research should investigate potential moderating factors, such as the attributes of the misinformation and the presence of social-category information about the protagonist, to reveal the mechanisms underlying the continued influence effect in person impressions.
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.