ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2024
The role of episodic memory sampling in evaluation.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trade-offs between remembering and online evaluation in retrospective evaluation.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Beyond Problem-Solving: Homeroom Teachers' Reflective Practice as a Tool for Mental Health Support in Chinese Schools.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Many models of choice assume that people retrieve memories of past experiences and use them to guide evaluation and choice. In this paper, we examine whether samples of recalled past experiences do indeed underpin our evaluations of options. We showed participants sequences of numerical values and asked them to recall as many of those values as possible and also to state how much they would be willing to pay for another draw from the sequence. Using Bayesian mixed effects modeling, we predicted participants' evaluation of the sequences at the group level from either the average of the values they recalled or the average of the values they saw. Contrary to the predictions of recall-based models, people's evaluations appear to be sensitive to information beyond what was actually recalled. Moreover, we did not find consistent evidence that memory for specific items is sufficient to predict evaluation of sequences. We discuss the implications for sampling models of memory and decision-making and alternative explanations.
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.