2003
DOI: 10.1002/acp.910
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phenomenal characteristics of co‐created guided imagery and autobiographical memories

Abstract: Concern has recently been raised about the potential for guided images to be mistaken for memories of actual events. According to the reality-monitoring framework, such misattributions can occur due to the similarity of sensory and reflective memory characteristics acquired at encoding, or due to source judgement processes at retrieval. A study was conducted to examine the similarity of guided images and perceived memories at imagery encoding, and after a short delay. Participants rated the characteristics of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
28
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In Experiment 1, we set out to replicate the findings of McDonough and Gallo for past events, using a more elaborate control task, and also to determine whether retrieval monitoring is enhanced for future events. To anticipate, study ratings confirmed that both past and future elaborations contained distinctive features relative to the semantic control, and these features One clue to this question comes from studies in which the subjective features of real and imagined events, such as dreams, fantasies, or unfulfilled intentions, have been compared (e.g., Hassabis, Kumaran, & Maguire, 2007;Johnson, Foley, Suengas, & Raye, 1988;Kealy & Arbuthnott, 2003;McGinnis & Roberts, 1996). In each of these studies, subjects were asked to retrieve memories for past or imagined autobiographical events and then to rate these memories on numerous subjective features.…”
Section: The Distinctiveness Heuristicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Experiment 1, we set out to replicate the findings of McDonough and Gallo for past events, using a more elaborate control task, and also to determine whether retrieval monitoring is enhanced for future events. To anticipate, study ratings confirmed that both past and future elaborations contained distinctive features relative to the semantic control, and these features One clue to this question comes from studies in which the subjective features of real and imagined events, such as dreams, fantasies, or unfulfilled intentions, have been compared (e.g., Hassabis, Kumaran, & Maguire, 2007;Johnson, Foley, Suengas, & Raye, 1988;Kealy & Arbuthnott, 2003;McGinnis & Roberts, 1996). In each of these studies, subjects were asked to retrieve memories for past or imagined autobiographical events and then to rate these memories on numerous subjective features.…”
Section: The Distinctiveness Heuristicmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous research indicates a significant reduction in rated memory characteristics after a 1 or 2 week delay (L. Topp, unpublished honours thesis, 2002;Kealy & Arbuthnott, 2003;Stern & Rotello, 2000). However these previous studies assessed the effect of delay by comparing MCQ ratings given following encoding or initial memory review with those given after the delay interval.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sensory details also discriminate in some contexts, but the difference is not always observed (Kealy & Arbuthnott, 2003), and such details are sometimes associated more strongly with a questionable event than with a veridical one (Sheen et al, 2001). In everyday circumstances, individuals also use an event's coherence, both internal and with other autobiographical knowledge, to judge its veracity (Conway et al, 1996;Ross et al, 1998).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations