Do you remember proposing marriage to the Pepsi machine? False recollections from a campus walk

Seamon, John G.; Philbin, Morgan M.; Harrison, Liza G.

doi:10.3758/bf03193992

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The memory implantation procedure focused on in this paper is complemented by laboratory-based methods in which researchers have control over the events that are recalled. For example, Goff and Roediger (1996) described a method for inducing false memories for actions performed in the laboratory, and their approach has been further adapted by others (e.g., Clark, Nash, Fincham, & Mazzoni, 2013;Nash, Wade, & Lindsay, 2009;Seamon, Philbin, & Harrison, 2006;Thomas & Loftus, 2002). One important trade-off between the implantation procedure and laboratory procedures is ecological validity, because the events used in controlled laboratory studies do not resemble autobiographical memories in their full complexity.…”

Section: Potential Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies

Scoboria

Wade

Lindsay

et al. 2016

Memory

156

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2016) A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory, 25 (2). pp. 146-163. Permanent WRAP URL:http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/83729 Copyright and reuse:The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. In Press, Memory, November 9, 2016. This is not the official copy of record; the final published version may differ slightly.Author note: Please direct correspondence to A. Scoboria, Department of Psychology, 401 Sunset, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9B 3P4, scoboria@uwindsor.ca; K. Wade, Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, University Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom, K.A.Wade@warwick.ac.uk; S. Lindsay, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria BC, Canada,V8W 2Y2, slindsay@uvic.ca. This research was supported by a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant to the first author (RGPIN/327570−2012). The authors thank the many research assistants who contributed to this research. RUNNING HEAD: Mega-analysis of False Memory Reports… 2 AbstractUnderstanding that suggestive practices can promote false beliefs and false memories for childhood events is important in many settings (e.g., psychotherapeutic, medical, legal). The generalizability of findings from memory implantation studies has been questioned due to variability in estimates across studies. Such variability is partly due to false memories having been operationalized differently across studies and to differences in memory induction techniques. We explored ways of defining false memory based on memory science and developed a reliable coding system that we applied to reports from eight published implantation studies (N=423). Independent raters coded transcripts using seven criteria: accepting the suggestion, elaboration beyond the suggestion, imagery, coherence, emotion, memory statements, and not rejecting the suggestion. Using this scheme, 30.4% of cases were classified as false memories and another 23% wer...

show abstract

Section: Potential Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies

Scoboria

Wade

Lindsay

et al. 2016

Memory

156

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Brainerd & Reyna, 2005;Davis & Loftus, 2007;Madill & Holch, 2004) including educational ones (e.g. Seamon et al, 2006).…”

Section: Implications For Debates About Guided Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Goff & Roediger, 1998;Thomas et al, 2003) or more sequential action sequences (e.g. Seamon et al, 2006). Consistent with the SMF, imagery scripts that emphasize perceptual and contextual detail may be especially likely to induce memory errors because the presence of these kinds of cues often signal that a memory might be based on an event directly experienced (Gonsalves, Reber, Gitelman, Parrish, Mesulam, & Paller, 2004;Johnson et al, 1993;Lindsay, 2008a).…”

Section: Implications For Debates About Guided Imagerymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Imagery encoding effects on memory in the DRM paradigm: A test of competing predictions

Foley

Hughes

Librot

et al. 2008

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments the effects of imagery encoding and test format on false memory rates in the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) paradigm were examined. After generating images of individual items (Experiment 1) or integrated subsets (Experiment 2), all of which were embedded in thematically related lists, participants were surprised by a recognition memory test or one of three kinds of source tests. As predicted by a distinctive encoding hypothesis, generating individual images led to better accuracy on presented items, and better monitoring of critical lures, than generating integrated images (Experiments 1 and 2). However, both kinds of imagery encoding led to fewer endorsements of critical lures compared to a non-imagery encoding condition (Experiment 3). Imagery encoding effects were also independent of test format. The implications of these findings for the use of DRM-false memory rates in debates about the use of guided imagery techniques are discussed.

show abstract

“…Several studies have investigated the effects of imagining different types of actions by manipulating the bizarreness of the actions (e.g., Seamon, Philbin, & Harrison, 2006), on the basis of the reasoning that people should be more capable of rejecting bizarre false events than familiar ones. Some researchers more broadly discuss "memorability-based strategies" that incorporate numerous possible characteristics, including bizarreness, that might help a person to reject a false suggestion (Ghetti, 2003;Tousignant, Hall, & Loftus, 1986).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitally manipulating memory: Effects of doctored videos and imagination in distorting beliefs and memories

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In prior research on false autobiographical beliefs and memories, subjects have been asked to imagine fictional events and they have been exposed to false evidence that indicates the fictional events occurred. But what are the relative contributions of imagination and false evidence toward false belief and memory construction? Subjects observed and copied various simple actions, then viewed doctored videos that suggested they had performed extra actions, and they imagined performing some of those and some other actions. Subjects returned two weeks later for a memory test. False evidence or imagination alone was often sufficient to cause belief and memory distortions; the two techniques in combination appeared to have additive or even superadditive effects. The results bear on the mechanisms underlying false beliefs and memories, and we propose legal and clinical applications of these findings

show abstract

Do you remember proposing marriage to the Pepsi machine? False recollections from a campus walk

Cited by 28 publications

References 18 publications

A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies

A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies

Imagery encoding effects on memory in the DRM paradigm: A test of competing predictions

Digitally manipulating memory: Effects of doctored videos and imagination in distorting beliefs and memories

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About