Article retracted, but the message lives on

Abstract

The retraction of an original article aims to ensure that readers are alerted to the fact that the findings are not trustworthy. However, the present research suggests that individuals still believe in the findings of an article even though they were later told that the data were fabricated and that the article was retracted. Participants in a debriefing condition and a no-debriefing condition learned about the scientific finding of an empirical article, whereas participants in a control condition did not. Afterward, participants in the debriefing condition were told that the article had been retracted because of fabricated data. Results showed that participants in the debriefing condition were less likely to believe in the findings than participants in the no-debriefing condition but were more likely to believe in the findings than participants in the control condition, suggesting that individuals do adjust their beliefs in the perceived truth of a scientific finding after debriefing—but insufficiently. Mediational analyses revealed that the availability of generated causal arguments underlies belief perseverance. These results suggest that a retraction note of an empirical article in a scientific journal is not sufficient to ensure that readers of the original article no longer believe in the article’s conclusions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A. (1982). Inoculation and counterexplanation: Debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories. Social Cognition, 1, 126–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, C. A. (1983). Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: When weak data lead to unshakable beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson, C. A., New, B. L., & Speer, J. R. (1985). Argument availability as a mediator of social theory perseverance. Social Cognition, 3, 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Anderson, C. A., & Sechler, E. S. (1986). Effects of explanation and counterexplanation on the development and use of social theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Budd, J. M., Sievert, M., & Schultz, T. R. (1998). Phenomena of retraction: Reasons for retraction and citations to the publications. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 296–297.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 570–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fang, F. C., Steen, R. G., & Casadevall, A. (2012). Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 17028–17033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Greitemeyer, T., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2003). Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: Beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 322–339.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7, e44118.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420–1436.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information. Memory and Cognition, 7, 368–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1231–1243.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Neale, A. V., Dailey, R. K., & Abrams, J. (2010). Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 251–261.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perserverance in self perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880–892.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., Strack, F., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social explanation and social expectation: The effects of real and hypothetical explanations upon subjective likelihood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 817–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sanna, L., Chang, E., Miceli, P., & Lundberg, K. (2011). Rising up to higher virtues: Experiencing elevated physical height uplifts prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 472–476

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sanna, L., Chang, E. C., Miceli, P. M., & Lundberg, K. B. (2013). Retraction notice to “Rising up to higher virtues: Experiencing elevated physical height uplifts prosocial actions” [Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47 (2010) 472–476]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Slusher, M. P., & Anderson, C. A. (1996). Using causal persuasive arguments to change beliefs and teach new information: The mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 110–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249–253.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 670–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26–28.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 40, 361–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

I am grateful to Barbara Bökamp and Jack Hollingdale for their help in conducting this research.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Greitemeyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Greitemeyer, T. Article retracted, but the message lives on. Psychon Bull Rev 21, 557–561 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0500-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Research fraud
  • Retraction
  • Belief perseverance