ArticleJournal of applied research in memory and cognition2022
Memory Sins in Applied Settings: What Kind of Progress?
Article in Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Productivity and stress recollection inaccuracy: Anchoring effects in work-from-home evaluation.PloS one · 2025Article
- Internet Use as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Personal Resources and Stress in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR aging · 2024Article
- Persistence of collective memory of corporate bankruptcy events discussed on X (Twitter) is influenced by pre-bankruptcy public attention.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Misinformation and the Sins of Memory: False-Belief Formation and Limits on Belief Revision.Journal of applied research in memory and cognition · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Over two decades ago, I proposed that memory errors could be classified into seven basic categories or sins (Schacter, 1999, 2001), comprising three sins of omission (transience, absentmindedness, and blocking) and four sins of commission (misattribution, suggestibility, bias, and persistence). In the past two decades, much has been learned about the nature and basis of the memory sins. Here, I assess the extent of progress that has been made during that time regarding applied implications of five of the sins: transience, absentmindedness, misattribution, suggestibility, and persistence. The manifestations of these sins have been examined in a variety of applied settings, including educational, clinical, legal, and technological domains. I argue that considerable progress has been made in characterizing the impact of memory sins in each domain, identify gaps in and limitations of our current knowledge, and briefly consider how these developments bear on broad questions regarding the reliability of human memory.
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.