ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Episodic details are better remembered in plausible relative to implausible counterfactual simulations.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Retention and transformation of internal experiences in autobiographical memory narratives.Communications psychology · 2026Article
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
People often engage in episodic counterfactual thinking, or mentally simulating how the experienced past might have been different from how it was. A commonly held view is that mentally simulating alternative event outcomes aids in managing future uncertainty and improving behavior, for which episodic counterfactual simulations need to be remembered. Yet the phenomenological factors influencing the memorability of counterfactual simulations remain unclear. To investigate this, we conducted two experiments using a paradigm where participants recalled autobiographical memories. After 1 week, they created counterfactual mental simulations of these memories, integrating a new object into each one and rating them on various phenomenological characteristics. Memory for these counterfactual mental simulations was tested the next day by recalling the new object. Across the two experiments we found that objects included in more plausible counterfactual simulations were better remembered compared with implausible counterfactual simulations. Our findings suggest that generating episodic counterfactual simulations perceived as plausible enhances their memorability, similar to other memory phenomena in which schematic knowledge improves subsequent episodic memory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40038184What 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.