Citations are increasingly being used to evaluate institutional and individual performance, suggesting a need for rigorous research to understand what behaviors citations are reflecting and what these behaviors mean for the institution of science. To overcome challenges in accurately representing the citation generation process, we use postretraction citations to test competing theories under two different citation search processes, empirically testing predictions on the spread of retracted references. We find that retracted papers are continually cited after the retraction, and that these citations are more likely to come from audiences likely to be unfamiliar with the field of the retracted paper. In addition, we find this association to be much stronger among those citing high-status journals, consistent with the behavior of scientists relying on heuristic search instead of engaged search process. While the current policy debate on misinformation in science emphasizes increasing the visibility of retraction labels to discourage the use of such publications, we argue that institutional-level interventions may be more effective, as such interventions are more consistent with the heuristic citation process. As such citation behavior may not be limited to the case of postretraction citations, we discuss the implications for current science studies as well as science policy.