Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40918615›Full record

ArticleJournal of cognition2025

Revisiting the Plausibility Effect in Remembering Truth and Falsity: An Analysis of Underlying Memory and Guessing Processes.

Daria Ford, Lena Nadarevic

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cognition, 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, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5549-5739
Lena NadarevicDepartment of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1852-5019

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plausibility seems to play a key role in how well people remember the veracity of information. In a study by Vorms and colleagues (2022), an interaction pattern between statement plausibility and veracity feedback on memory performance appeared: Plausible statements were significantly more often correctly identified as true than correctly identified as false; for implausible statements, the descriptive trend was reversed. Given the importance of accurate memory for truth and falsity in real-world settings, it is crucial to understand the cognitive processes underlying this plausibility effect. For this purpose, we conducted a preregistered experiment in which participants studied four different statement types along with veracity feedback: plausible true, plausible false, implausible true, and implausible false. In a later recognition test, they indicated whether a statement was presented and, if so, what veracity feedback was displayed. We replicated the plausibility effect as an interaction between statement plausibility and veracity feedback on correct true/false attributions. Moreover, we analysed the data with a multinomial model to estimate the contribution of statement memory, feedback memory, and different guessing processes underlying the observable responses. These analyses revealed that guessing processes and statement memory accounted for the above-mentioned plausibility effect: Feedback guessing was influenced by corresponding statement plausibility, and statement memory was overall better when the veracity feedback aligned with statement plausibility. In contrast, feedback memory was enhanced in the case of a discrepancy between veracity feedback and statement plausibility. These results emphasise the importance of examining the processes driving the plausibility effect to derive correct conclusions.

Indexed as

expectation-violation modelfeedback memoryitem memoryplausibilityveracity

Identifiers

PMID40918615
PMCPMC12412448

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.