Premium
It Is Just Harder to Construct Memories for False Autobiographical Events
Author(s) -
Pezdek Kathy,
BlandonGitlin Iris
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.3269
Subject(s) - false memory , psychology , recall , construct (python library) , memory errors , cognitive psychology , autobiographical memory , constructive , cognition , false alarm , framing (construction) , episodic memory , cognitive science , process (computing) , computer science , artificial intelligence , history , archaeology , neuroscience , programming language , operating system
Summary Brewin and Andrews (2016) review studies using three research paradigms—imagination inflation, false feedback, and memory implantation—and the prevalence rate for false memories differs widely across paradigms. Vast differences also result depending on the scheme used to code the recall data. Framing memory as a constructive process reveals many of the similarities between cognitive processes involved in memory for true and false events, similarities that account for why memories are far less likely to result for false events than true events. Memories for false events are just not as easy to construct and plant as has been suggested elsewhere. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.