Literature DB >> 23975542

Article retracted, but the message lives on.

Tobias Greitemeyer1.   

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in the findings of an article even though they were later told that the data were fabricated and that the article was retracted.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 Afterward, participants in the debriefing condition were told that the article had been retracted because of fabricated data.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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23975542     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0500-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  12 in total

1.  Preference-consistent evaluation of information in the hidden profile paradigm: beyond group-level explanations for the dominance of shared information in group decisions.

Authors:  Tobias Greitemeyer; Stefan Schulz-Hardt
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2003-02

2.  Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm.

Authors:  L Ross; M R Lepper; M Hubbard
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1975-11

3.  Science publishing: The trouble with retractions.

Authors:  Richard Van Noorden
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Retractions in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing?

Authors:  R Grant Steen
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2010-12-24       Impact factor: 2.903

5.  Phenomena of retraction: reasons for retraction and citations to the publications.

Authors:  J M Budd; M Sievert; T R Schultz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science.

Authors:  Wolfgang Stroebe; Tom Postmes; Russell Spears
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-11

7.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.

Authors:  Ferric C Fang; R Grant Steen; Arturo Casadevall
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Misleading postevent information and memory for events: arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses.

Authors:  M McCloskey; M Zaragoza
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1985-03

9.  Analysis of citations to biomedical articles affected by scientific misconduct.

Authors:  Anne Victoria Neale; Rhonda K Dailey; Judith Abrams
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 3.525

10.  A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature.

Authors:  Michael L Grieneisen; Minghua Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  4 in total

1.  Failure to accept retractions: A contribution to the continued influence effect.

Authors:  Andrea E O'Rear; Gabriel A Radvansky
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-01

2.  Failure to replicate the Mehta and Zhu (2009) color-priming effect on anagram solution times.

Authors:  Kenneth M Steele
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-06

3.  Does Exonerating an Accused Researcher Restore the Researcher's Credibility?

Authors:  Tobias Greitemeyer; Christina Sagioglou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Low replicability can support robust and efficient science.

Authors:  Stephan Lewandowsky; Klaus Oberauer
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 14.919

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.