Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38286945›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

Unringing the bell: Successful debriefing following a rich false memory study.

Ciara M Greene, Katie M Ryan, Lisa Ballantyne, Elizabeth Barrett, Conor S Cowman, Caroline A Dawson, Charlotte Huston, Julie Maher, Gillian Murphy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Current state of 'lost in the mall': implications for expert witness testimony on the reliability of childhood memories.Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ciara M GreeneSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. ciara.greene@ucd.ie.
Katie M RyanSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Lisa BallantyneSchool of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Elizabeth BarrettSchool of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Conor S CowmanSchool of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Caroline A DawsonSchool of Psychology, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Charlotte HustonSchool of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Julie MaherSchool of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Gillian MurphySchool of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In rich false memory studies, familial informants often provide information to support researchers in planting vivid memories of events that never occurred. The goal of the current study was to assess how effectively we can retract these false memories via debriefing - i.e., to what extent can we put participants back the way we found them? We aimed to establish (1) what proportion of participants would retain a false memory or false belief following debriefing, and (2) whether richer, more detailed memories would be more difficult to retract. Participants (N = 123) completed a false memory implantation protocol as part of a replication of the "Lost in the Mall" study (Loftus & Pickrell, Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725, 1995). By the end of the protocol, 14% of participants self-reported a memory for the fabricated event, and a further 52% believed it had happened. Participants were then fully debriefed, and memory and belief for the false event were assessed again. In a follow-up assessment 3 days post-debriefing, the false memory rate had dropped to 6% and false belief rates also fell precipitously to 7%. Moreover, virtually all persistent false memories were found to be nonbelieved memories, where participants no longer accepted that the fabricated event had occurred. Richer, more detailed memories were more resistant to correction, but were still mostly retracted. This study provides evidence that participants can be "dehoaxed", and even very convincing false memories can be retracted.

Indexed as

Repression, PsychologyAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMemory, EpisodicMental RecallYoung AdultDebriefingFalse beliefFalse memoryPhenomenology

Identifiers

PMID38286945
PMCPMC11315748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.