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.