title: 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in the findings of an article even though they were later told that the data were fabricated and that the article was retracted.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 Afterward, participants in the debriefing condition were told that the article had been retracted because of fabricated data.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.
authors: University of Innsbruck, Innrain 52, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria, tobias.greitemeyer@uibk.ac.at.
authors: Tobias
authors: T
authors: Greitemeyer
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012106:Research / Q000592:standards*; D012180:Retraction of Publication as Topic; D013850:Thinking / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Feb;84(2):322-39
references: 12585807
references: JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):296-7
references: 9676689
references: PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e44118
references: 23115617
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975 Nov;32(5):880-92
references: 1185517
references: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1985 Mar;114(1):1-16
references: 3156942
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028-33
references: 23027971
references: Nature. 2011 Oct 05;478(7367):26-8
references: 21979026
references: J Med Ethics. 2011 Apr;37(4):249-53
references: 21186208
references: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):670-88
references: 26168129
references: Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Jun;16(2):251-61
references: 19597966
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984 Dec;47(6):1231-43
references: 6527215
references: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Jun;18(3):570-8
references: 21359617