IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2106.11433.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Retractions: Updating from Complex Information

Author

Listed:
  • Duarte Gonc{c}alves
  • Jonathan Libgober
  • Jack Willis

Abstract

We modify a canonical experimental design to identify the effectiveness of retractions. Comparing beliefs after retractions to beliefs (a) without the retracted information and (b) after equivalent new information, we find that retractions result in diminished belief updating in both cases. We propose this reflects updating from retractions being more complex, and our analysis supports this: we find longer response times, lower accuracy, and higher variability. The results -- robust across diverse subject groups and design variations -- enhance our understanding of belief updating and offer insights into addressing misinformation.

Suggested Citation

  • Duarte Gonc{c}alves & Jonathan Libgober & Jack Willis, 2021. "Retractions: Updating from Complex Information," Papers 2106.11433, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2024.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.11433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.11433
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin Enke, 2020. "What You See Is All There Is," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1363-1398.
    2. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Jonathan A. Parker, 2005. "Optimal Expectations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1092-1118, September.
    3. Duncan James & Daniel Friedman & Christina Louie & Taylor O'Meara, 2018. "Dissecting The Monty Hall Anomaly," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(3), pages 1817-1826, July.
    4. Fatemeh Borhani & Edward J. Green, 2018. "Identifying the occurrence or non occurrence of cognitive bias in situations resembling the Monty Hall problem," Papers 1802.08935, arXiv.org.
    5. Ambuehl, Sandro & Li, Shengwu, 2018. "Belief updating and the demand for information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 21-39.
    6. Grossman, Zachary & Owens, David, 2012. "An unlucky feeling: Overconfidence and noisy feedback," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 510-524.
    7. John J. Conlon & Malavika Mani & Gautam Rao & Matthew W. Ridley & Frank Schilbach, 2021. "Learning in the Household," NBER Working Papers 28844, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. David Eil & Justin M. Rao, 2011. "The Good News-Bad News Effect: Asymmetric Processing of Objective Information about Yourself," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(2), pages 114-138, May.
    9. Alexander Coutts, 2019. "Good news and bad news are still news: experimental evidence on belief updating," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 369-395, June.
    10. Alejandro Martínez-Marquina & Muriel Niederle & Emanuel Vespa, 2019. "Failures in Contingent Reasoning: The Role of Uncertainty," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(10), pages 3437-3474, October.
    11. Tanjim Hossain & Ryo Okui, 2013. "The Binarized Scoring Rule," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(3), pages 984-1001.
    12. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2016. "Mindful Economics: The Production, Consumption, and Value of Beliefs," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 141-164, Summer.
    13. Kovach, Matthew, 2020. "Twisting the truth: foundations of wishful thinking," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(3), July.
    14. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    15. Joshua B. Miller & Adam Sanjurjo, 2019. "A Bridge from Monty Hall to the Hot Hand: The Principle of Restricted Choice," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 144-162, Summer.
    16. Friedman, Daniel, 1998. "Monty Hall's Three Doors: Construction and Deconstruction of a Choice Anomaly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 933-946, September.
    17. Charness, Gary & Dave, Chetan, 2017. "Confirmation bias with motivated beliefs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-23.
    18. Matthew Rabin & Joel L. Schrag, 1999. "First Impressions Matter: A Model of Confirmatory Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(1), pages 37-82.
    19. Ignacio Esponda Jr. & Emanuel Vespa Jr., 2014. "Hypothetical Thinking and Information Extraction in the Laboratory," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(4), pages 180-202, November.
    20. Gary Charness & Dan Levin, 2005. "When Optimal Choices Feel Wrong: A Laboratory Study of Bayesian Updating, Complexity, and Affect," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(4), pages 1300-1309, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kai Barron, 2021. "Belief updating: does the ‘good-news, bad-news’ asymmetry extend to purely financial domains?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 31-58, March.
    2. Daniel J. Benjamin, 2018. "Errors in Probabilistic Reasoning and Judgment Biases," NBER Working Papers 25200, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Markus M. Möbius & Muriel Niederle & Paul Niehaus & Tanya S. Rosenblat, 2022. "Managing Self-Confidence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 7793-7817, November.
    4. Burro, Giovanni & Castagnetti, Alessandro, 2024. "The ego is no fool: Absence of motivated belief formation in strategic interactions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Castagnetti, Alessandro & Schmacker, Renke, 2022. "Protecting the ego: Motivated information selection and updating," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    6. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2022. "By chance or by choice? Biased attribution of others’ outcomes when social preferences matter," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(2), pages 413-443, April.
    7. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2018. "By chance or by choice? Biased attribution of others’ outcomes," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 2040, The University of Melbourne.
    8. Sebastian Fehrler & Baiba Renerte & Irenaeus Wolff, 2020. "Beliefs about Others: A Striking Example of Information Neglect," TWI Research Paper Series 118, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    9. Christoph Drobner, 2020. "Motivated Beliefs and Anticipation of Uncertainty Resolution," Munich Papers in Political Economy 07, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    10. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    11. Banerjee, Ritwik & Gupta, Nabanita Datta & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2020. "Feedback spillovers across tasks, self-confidence and competitiveness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 127-170.
    12. Kai Barron & Christina Gravert, 2022. "Confidence and Career Choices: An Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 124(1), pages 35-68, January.
    13. Cavalan, Quentin & de Gardelle, Vincent & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe, 2023. "No evidence of biased updating in beliefs about absolute performance: A replication and generalization of Grossman and Owens (2012)," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 530-548.
    14. Esponda, Ignacio & Vespa, Emanuel & Yuksel, Sevgi, 2024. "Mental Models and Learning: The Case of Base-Rate Neglect," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt8cb387t8, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    15. Coutts, Alexander, 2019. "Testing models of belief bias: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 549-565.
    16. Bolte, Lukas & Fan, Tony Q., 2024. "Motivated mislearning: The case of correlation neglect," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 647-663.
    17. Chen, Jaden Yang, 2022. "Biased learning under ambiguous information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2021. "Gender Biases in Performance Evaluation: The Role of Beliefs Versus Outcomes," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2021-09, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Roy-Chowdhury, V., 2022. "Self-Confidence and Motivated Memory Loss: Evidence from Schools," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2213, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    20. Thomas Buser & Leonie Gerhards & Joël J. van der Weele, 2016. "Measuring Responsiveness to Feedback as a Personal Trait," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-043/I, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2106.11433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.