ArticleMemory & cognition2026
Misinformation resistance in memory reports of one instance of a repeated event: Post-warnings reduce misinformation endorsement in recognition.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. 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
Previous research shows that remembering repeated events differs from remembering single events, yet little research has examined suggestibility in adults' memory for repeated events. In the present experiment, we investigated the effects of eyewitness misinformation and the role of a warning against misinformation in a repeated-event scenario. We examined how different types of misinformation - entirely new items versus items present in non-target instances - influence reporting. Three hundred and nine participants watched four surveillance-mission videos that shared a general story structure but differed in key details. Participants were later exposed to pieces of misinformation in a video narrative of someone else reporting the first mission. Reporting was measured using free recall, cued recall, and recognition. We replicated the standard misinformation effect in the repeated-event context. We found that the warning reduced misinformation reporting, but the effect was present only in the recognition task. Based on the source-monitoring framework, we expected it would be easier to resist external (entirely new) misinformation than misinformation consistent with what was present in non-target instances, and this was also true. The warning's lack of efficacy may be accounted for in two ways. First, the inherent difficulty of attributing details to specific instances of repeated events may have overshadowed the potential effects of the warning. Second, ours was a general warning; it might not have been strong enough to restore an adequate understanding of a memory task distorted by misinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42809198What 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.