Premium
Commentary on Brewin and Andrews
Author(s) -
Lindsay D. Stephen,
Hyman Ira E.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
applied cognitive psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.719
H-Index - 100
eISSN - 1099-0720
pISSN - 0888-4080
DOI - 10.1002/acp.3267
Subject(s) - autobiographical memory , psychology , false memory , context (archaeology) , cognitive psychology , eyewitness testimony , experimental psychology , epistemology , social psychology , cognition , recall , history , psychiatry , philosophy , archaeology
Summary Brewin and Andrews (2016) reviewed the literature on false memories of autobiographical events, discussed those findings in the context of theoretical accounts of autobiographical memory, and concluded that no more than 15% of people exposed to suggestive influences come to develop robust false memories of significant childhood events. We note several points on which we agree with Brewin and Andrews. But we also take issue with their review and their conclusions. The likelihood of false memories depends on interactions among numerous variables, and psychology is far short of the degree of theoretical precision required to specify any upper limit. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.