  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.
