ArticleApplied cognitive psychology
Misrepresentations and Flawed Logic About the Prevalence of False Memories.
Article in Applied cognitive psychology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the evidence for repressed memory recovery in psychedelic contexts.Psychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Article
- Belief in Unconscious Repressed Memory Persists.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2021Article
- The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2019Review
- Scientific evidence versus outdated beliefs: A response to Brewin (2016).Journal of abnormal psychology · 2016Article
- Misrepresentations and Flawed Logic About the Prevalence of False Memories.Applied cognitive psychologyArticle
- False Memories and Free Speech: Is Scientific Debate Being Suppressed?Applied cognitive psychologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Brewin and Andrews (2016) propose that just 15% of people, or even fewer, are susceptible to false childhood memories. If this figure were true, then false memories would still be a serious problem. But the figure is higher than 15%. False memories occur even after a few short and low-pressure interviews, and with each successive interview, they become richer, more compelling, and more likely to occur. It is therefore dangerously misleading to claim that the scientific data provide an "upper bound" on susceptibility to memory errors. We also raise concerns about the peer review process.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.