ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
The importance of truth: Joint retrieval of "true" and "important" feedback in multidimensional source memory.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.