Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40358873›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

The importance of truth: Joint retrieval of "true" and "important" feedback in multidimensional source memory.

Daria Ford, Marek Nieznański

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Daria FordDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, L13, 15, 68161, Mannheim, Germany. d.ford@uni-mannheim.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5549-5739
Marek NieznańskiInstitute of Psychology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2457-3909

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Source memory for truth is usually better than for falsity, and similar effects are observed for important compared with unimportant information. A recently found interaction between information veracity and importance indicates that people effectively prioritize encoding true information (but not false). Yet it is unclear whether the feedback about veracity and importance of the information is integrated into joint memory representation. In the following experiment, we investigated whether source memory for veracity and importance dimensions is stochastically dependent. Students (N = 82) memorized trivia statements along with their veracity and importance status, which resulted in four different combinations of sources ("true and important", "true and unimportant", "false and important", "false and unimportant"). The analysis with a multidimensional source memory multinomial model revealed that the joint retrieval of "true" and "important" feedback as compound information is better than for all other combinations. Moreover, the veracity dimension was memorized better than the importance dimension, showing that we remember whether information is true or false better than whether it is important or unimportant.

Indexed as

Feedback, PsychologicalMental RecallAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung AdultBinding contextual informationMemory for truth and falsitySource memoryValue-directed remembering

Identifiers

PMID40358873
PMCPMC12426068

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.