↓ Skip to main content

Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Correcting false memories: Errors must be noticed and replaced
Published in
Memory & Cognition, November 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13421-015-0571-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hillary G. Mullet, Elizabeth J. Marsh

Abstract

Memory can be unreliable. For example, after reading The new baby stayed awake all night, people often misremember that the new baby cried all night (Brewer, 1977); similarly, after hearing bed, rest, and tired, people often falsely remember that sleep was on the list (Roediger & McDermott, 1995). In general, such false memories are difficult to correct, persisting despite warnings and additional study opportunities. We argue that errors must first be detected to be corrected; consistent with this argument, two experiments showed that false memories were nearly eliminated when conditions facilitated comparisons between participants' errors and corrective feedback (e.g., immediate trial-by-trial feedback that allowed direct comparisons between their responses and the correct information). However, knowledge that they had made an error was insufficient; unless the feedback message also contained the correct answer, the rate of false memories remained relatively constant. On the one hand, there is nothing special about correcting false memories: simply labeling an error as "wrong" is also insufficient for correcting other memory errors, including misremembered facts or mistranslations. However, unlike these other types of errors-which often benefit from the spacing afforded by delayed feedback-false memories require a special consideration: Learners may fail to notice their errors unless the correction conditions specifically highlight them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 59%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Philosophy 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 10 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2016.
All research outputs
#6,673,538
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#416
of 1,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,915
of 389,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#8
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,568 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 389,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.