Article retracted, but the message lives on

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 557-561

  Greitemeyer, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

Author keywords

Belief perseverance; Research fraud; Retraction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH; STANDARDS; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RESEARCH; RETRACTION OF PUBLICATION AS TOPIC; THINKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84897377787     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0500-6     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Anderson, C. A. (1982). Inoculation and counterexplanation: Debiasing techniques in the perseverance of social theories. Social Cognition, 1, 126-139.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
11. Grieneisen, M. L., & Zhang, M. (2012). A comprehensive survey of retracted articles from the scholarly literature. PLoS ONE, 7, e44118.
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.
13. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Reactions to blatantly contradictory information. Memory and Cognition, 7, 368-374.
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.
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.
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.
17. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
23. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Is the incidence of research fraud increasing? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37, 249-253.
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.
25. van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478, 26-28.
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.