ReviewFrontiers in psychology2017
Choice-Supportive Misremembering: A New Taxonomy and Review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implantable Tibial Neuromodulation Therapy Improves Symptoms of Urge Urinary Incontinence From the TITAN 2 Pivotal Study.The Journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Stepped-Care Management of Insomnia: Treatment Choices Guided by a Patient Decision Aid in a Pragmatic Nonrandomized Clinical Trial Setting.Journal of sleep research · 2026Trial
- Rating our certainty: how confidence judgments amplify belief polarization.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Turning likes into lifts: Understanding how adolescents experience fitfluencer content and the opportunities it offers them.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Transgender persons' view on previous fertility decision-making and current infertility: a qualitative study.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Reflecting on the Importance of Family Building and Fertility Preservation: Transgender People's Experiences with Starting Gender-Affirming Treatment as an Adolescent.Transgender health · 2024Article
- Article
- Computational mechanisms underlying latent value updating of unchosen actions.Science advances · 2023Article
- The role of memory in counterfactual valuation.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2023Article
- Perceptions of Telemedicine and Costs Incurred by a Visit to a General Infectious Diseases Clinic: A Survey.Open forum infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Memory and decision making interact to shape the value of unchosen options.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Examining mechanisms for gender differences in admission to intensive care units.Health services research · 2020Observational
- Patient Perceptions of a Decision Support Tool for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the literature on the influence of memory on decisions is well developed, research on the effects of decision making on memory is rather sparse and scattered. Choice-supportive misremembering (i.e., misremembering choice-related information that boosts the chosen option and/or demotes the foregone options) has been observed in several studies and has the potential to affect future choices. Nonetheless, no attempt has been made to review the relevant literature, categorize the different types of choice-supportive misremembering observed, and critically appraise the existing evidence and proposed explanations. Thus, starting from a new theoretically motivated and empirically grounded taxonomy, we review the current research. Our taxonomy classifies choice-supportive misremembering into four conceptually distinct types:
Indexed as
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.