Cargando…

The Potential for False Memories is Bigger than What Brewin and Andrews Suggest

Brewin and Andrews (2016) reviewed the literature on false memory propensity for childhood events. In this commentary, we critically evaluate their basic claim that proneness to false memories of childhood experiences is more limited than has been articulated in the literature. We show that Brewin a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Otgaar, Henry, Merckelbach, Harald, Jelicic, Marko, Smeets, Tom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6084313/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30122805
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3262
Descripción
Sumario:Brewin and Andrews (2016) reviewed the literature on false memory propensity for childhood events. In this commentary, we critically evaluate their basic claim that proneness to false memories of childhood experiences is more limited than has been articulated in the literature. We show that Brewin and Andrews were selective in their inclusion of false memory studies, thereby ignoring relevant research related to autobiographical false memories. Equally important, and in contrast to what Brewin and Andrews claim, we show that implanted false memories elicited by misinformation are characterized by high confidence. © 2016 The Authors Applied Cognitive Psychology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.