ArticleScientific reports2025
Adults are just as susceptible to memory suggestibility when reporting about single and repeated events.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Exposure to misleading suggestive questions can distort adults' memory for single events, but it is unclear whether this is also the case following a repeated event, such as domestic abuse and sexual harassment. Participants viewed one (single event, n = 56) or four videos (repeated event) depicting domestic abuse. One-week after the only, or the final instance, participants were exposed to misleading suggestive questions about non-experienced details, before providing a final recall report about the target instance. Repeated-event participants were either prompted to recall the last instance (n = 55), or the instance they "remember best" (n = 56). No differences in suggestibility across conditions emerged; however, suggestibility rates were still high (~ 50%). Repeat-best participants produced a similarly accurate report about the target instance as the single-event participants, but a more accurate report than repeat-last participants. The outcomes of the study suggest that investigative interviewers should avoid asking misleading questions as they risk distorting memory, regardless of whether the event has occurred once or repeatedly. Furthermore, interviewers may find it more productive to prompt repeated-event interviewees to nominate which instance they wish to discuss (i.e., the time remembered best), as this may help improve the accuracy of their report.
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.