False Memories and Extraordinary Experiences: What Research Shows
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Extraordinary Experiences & Anomalistic Psychology · Written by Artificial Sapiens
False memories are important to the study of extraordinary experiences because a recollection can change after an event, absorb information learned later, or acquire details whose origin is uncertain. Experiments establish that people can sincerely report details they never encountered, and some research demonstrates the formation of memory-like accounts of suggested autobiographical episodes. Those mechanisms are relevant to investigations of apparent encounters, premonitions, sensed presences, and other extraordinary reports. Their existence does not determine whether any particular person's experience occurred as remembered. A scientific evaluation separates the experience initially reported, the memory reconstructed later, and independent evidence about the event and its proposed cause. Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay's source-monitoring review and Scoboria and colleagues' mega-analysis establish these distinctions.
Extraordinary memories may be vivid, emotionally powerful, and sincerely held. The subjective reality of remembering is therefore a meaningful psychological observation. Historical accuracy requires a different kind of evidence. An observed difference between two groups on a laboratory memory task cannot establish whether an individual extraordinary encounter happened. Nor can a person's confidence or emotional reaction independently demonstrate the existence of an unusual external cause.
What Are False Memories in Extraordinary Experiences?
A false memory refers to recollection of an event or detail that did not occur as remembered. Memory distortions range from adding a mistaken detail to a real episode to describing a substantially inaccurate autobiographical event. The term concerns the relationship between a remembered account and an independently established history; it does not mean that the person is deliberately lying or has a psychiatric disorder. Experimental research identifies particular ways memory reports can depart from what investigators know was presented. Loftus (2005) reviews the tradition, and Muschalla and Schönborn (2021) examine the experimental induction of false beliefs and memories.
An extraordinary experience is a personally unusual event or episode perceived as surprising, meaningful, unexplained, or apparently beyond familiar expectation. Reports may concern a presence felt nearby, an unexplained figure, an unusual event remembered during the night, a sense of foreknowledge, or an encounter understood in terms of a nonhuman agent. The word extraordinary describes the experience and the person's interpretation. It does not independently establish a supernatural, extraterrestrial, or other proposed external cause.
The central research questions are what the person originally perceived, what the person recalls now, how those reports developed over time, and what reliable outside evidence is available. An investigation may establish a documented experience while leaving its origin unresolved. Conversely, a well-established general memory mechanism may offer a plausible explanation without being demonstrated in the specific case.
How Human Memory Reconstructs Events
Autobiographical remembering involves encoding, retrieval, interpretation, and integration of information. People attend to only some aspects of an experience. Later recall relies on retained details, meanings, expectations, and context. Reports can consequently change without conscious invention. The framework of source monitoring describes how people infer where remembered information originated: from direct observation, imagination, conversation, reading, dreaming, or another source. Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay (1993) explain the cognitive basis and limitations of these judgments.
An initially unusual episode might include a sudden sensation, an indistinct image, confusion about time, or a strong emotion. The person can remember those sensations accurately while later developing a more specific explanation. If images from subsequent conversations or media become familiar, it may be difficult to reconstruct which elements were initially perceived. That possibility is relevant to research; it cannot be assumed to have occurred in every report.
Source monitoring and reality monitoring
Source monitoring concerns attribution of a memory to its origin. Reality monitoring is especially concerned with distinguishing externally perceived events from internally generated experiences. These judgments draw on perceptual qualities, contextual information, and the remembered effort of producing an image or idea. They are usually useful, but errors sometimes occur. An imagined scene might become familiar, while a real observation may lose context over time. Johnson and colleagues discuss misattributed familiarity and the incorporation of fictional information into recollection.
This mechanism matters when an extraordinary report involves dreams, repeated visualization, previously heard narratives, or a fragmentary experience. The question is whether the remembered elements can be independently traced to their sources.
Post-event misinformation and suggestive questions
When a person receives misleading information after witnessing an event, later reports can incorporate details that were absent. A question may imply an object's existence or suggest a sequence of events. Other witnesses may introduce information before independent statements are recorded. In controlled settings the researcher knows which details were initially presented. Zaragoza and Lane (1994) demonstrated source misattribution following post-event information, and Loftus (2005) reviewed extensive work on memory malleability.
A detail appearing only after leading questioning has a different evidentiary history from one recorded immediately and independently. Yet recollection can also change because of ordinary retrieval cues or new legitimate evidence. Chronology is informative; it does not automatically assign truth or falsity.
Imagination, mental imagery, and familiarity
The imagination-inflation line of research examines whether imagining an event can increase the belief that it occurred. Garry, Manning, Loftus, and Sherman (1996) reported changes in participants' ratings after imagining childhood events. A later methodological critique argued that regression toward the mean could account for some reported changes, illustrating why controls and scoring matter.
Imagining a proposed extraordinary event can make its image familiar. The empirical outcome may nevertheless be a changed plausibility judgment, a transient image, a partial memory-like impression, or a coherent autobiographical recollection. These outcomes require separate measurement. Researchers should not label every increased belief a complete false memory.
Social narratives and the reconstruction of meaning
A person seeking an explanation for an unusual episode may compare it with accounts heard from friends, interviewers, media, or a community. These contexts can influence which details are remembered and what the experience is called. Spanos, Burgess, and Burgess (1994) discussed how social settings and explanatory narratives can contribute to some extraordinary-memory reports. The proposed process concerns interpretation and recollection, and cannot decide an individual report's factual history without independent investigation.
What Experimental False-Memory Research Demonstrates
The literature uses several paradigms that test distinct aspects of memory. A false recognition of a related word, a mistaken detail of a filmed event, and an autobiographical narrative about a suggested childhood episode do not represent interchangeable outcomes. Conclusions are strongest when investigators match their claims to the exact experimental measure.
The DRM word-list experiment
In the Deese–Roediger–McDermott paradigm, participants study semantically related words while a strongly related word is omitted. Some later recall or recognize the missing word as if it appeared. Because researchers know the original list, they can establish that the specific memory report is incorrect. Roediger and McDermott (1995) demonstrated robust associative false recollection in laboratory experiments.
This finding establishes that meaning and association influence recall and recognition. It does not show that someone who makes a word-list error will remember a complete extraordinary encounter inaccurately. The ecological distance between word-list tests and life-event memory is important.
The misinformation paradigm
Researchers present an event, provide misleading information afterward to some participants, and compare later answers. Differences between conditions can demonstrate that the intervention changed reported memory. This experimental design offers stronger causal inference about suggestion within the studied setting than a purely correlational survey. Zaragoza and Lane (1994) and Loftus (2005) provide primary evidence.
The practical implication for extraordinary reports is to identify whether a witness was asked to remember details only after hearing another person's account. Investigators should document exposure before drawing conclusions.
Implanting suggested autobiographical events
In autobiographical memory-implantation studies, participants receive a suggestion about an event from their supposed past, sometimes with personalized details or guided imagery. Researchers then examine belief, imagination, and memory-like statements. Scoboria and colleagues (2017) combined reports from eight published studies with 423 participants. Under their coding criteria, 30.4% were classified as showing false memories, and a further 23% accepted some part of the proposed event without meeting the criteria for a developed false memory.
These percentages describe the samples, procedures, and coding framework of selected experiments. They are not probabilities that a random extraordinary memory is false. The distinction between accepting a suggested event and remembering a complete episode is fundamental.
A systematic review by Muschalla and Schönborn (2021) examined 59 experimental studies and found considerable methodological heterogeneity. A 2023 meta-analysis of 30 rich autobiographical implantation studies supported the capacity of studied procedures to induce inaccurate event reports. The meta-analysis's standardized effect sizes should not be reinterpreted as individual probabilities or transferred directly to unusual-event narratives outside the laboratory.
Different tasks can measure different vulnerabilities
A contemporary study by Devitt and Foster (2026) compared false-memory performance in the DRM, misinformation, and memory-conjunction paradigms in younger and older adults. Relationships among the different measures were generally weak or absent, apart from some task-specific and subgroup findings. This reinforces the principle that susceptibility observed in one memory test is not a universal marker of memory reliability.
Alien-Abduction Memory Research: Evidence and Replication
Reports of alien encounters have been examined through laboratory memory tests, psychological questionnaires, interviews, sleep histories, and physiological measurements. This is a useful case study because findings from different methods are not completely consistent. Scientific conclusions must represent both supportive and conflicting evidence.
What Clancy and colleagues found in 2002
Clancy and colleagues (2002) compared three groups using a DRM variant: people reporting recovered alien-abduction memories, people believing they had been abducted without corresponding memories, and people not holding that belief. Participants reporting recovered memories produced more false recall and false recognition than comparison participants, whereas correct recall and recognition did not differ significantly.
The study documents an association between belonging to a particular recruited group and performance on a particular memory task. It does not prove that the participants' narratives resulted from the DRM mechanism or that every extraordinary-event report is inaccurate. The sample, recruitment, and laboratory task limit generalizability.
What French and colleagues found in 2008
French, Santomauro, Hamilton, Fox, and Thalbourne (2008) studied 19 UK participants reporting alien contact and a matched comparison group. They found differences in several self-report characteristics, including absorption, paranormal-experience reporting, and sleep-paralysis reporting. Crucially, they found no significant difference between groups in susceptibility to false memories on the tested measure.
This failure to replicate a group difference matters. Different samples, procedures, and statistical power may account for inconsistencies. The existing studies do not establish a consistent, generalizable false-memory profile for people reporting alien encounters. A reader should not infer historical truth or falsity from a group-level score.
Strong emotional responses do not verify an event
McNally and colleagues (2004) measured heart rate, skin conductance, and facial muscle activity while people reporting abduction listened to scripts describing their experiences. Their responses showed marked emotional engagement. This demonstrates the psychological and physiological significance of the recalled narrative to the participants. It does not establish whether the proposed encounter happened in the external world.
The same distinction applies to panic, grief, fear, or relief associated with any extraordinary memory. A powerful bodily response warrants empathy and, when needed, support. Its cause is a separate empirical question.
Sleep-related experiences as a documented pathway
McNally and Clancy (2005) described a study of 10 people whose reported alien encounters were associated with episodes consistent with sleep paralysis and unusual perceptions on awakening. Such episodes can be terrifying and may later be interpreted within culturally familiar narratives. This is evidence for a pathway in some reports, not a universal explanation for every unusual encounter.
The independent clinical subject is explained in Sleep Paralysis: Symptoms, Hallucinations, and What Helps. A remembered encounter alone is insufficient to conclude that sleep paralysis took place.
Premonitions, Coincidences, and Retrospective Reconstruction
When someone remembers anticipating an event that later occurred, chronology is the central evidentiary issue. What exactly was written, said, or recorded before the event? How specific was the expectation? Did the later account adopt details learned after the outcome? Memory science shows that source judgments can be mistaken; it does not establish that every premonition report results from hindsight reconstruction. Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay (1993) provide the relevant framework.
A contemporaneous dated record has greater value for determining what was predicted than an account first produced after the outcome. Even when such a record exists, alternative interpretations of vague language, selection of successful cases, and the conditions of observation require separate evaluation. The present article focuses on the memory's documentary history rather than general probability theory.
Meaningful coincidences can likewise involve real events accompanied by highly personal interpretations. The occurrence of an actual coincidence is separate from the cause attributed to it. The detail, timing, and original wording of an account are appropriate objects of memory research.
Ghost Sightings, Sensed Presences, and Changing Accounts
A witness may remember a figure, unfamiliar noise, or strong sensation of another being nearby. Such an experience can be subjectively unmistakable even when external evidence is limited. Perceptual circumstances, fatigue, ambiguity, cultural interpretation, and later conversations may all merit consideration. A memory-based explanation becomes particularly relevant when later descriptions include details absent from the first report.
If several people discuss an unexplained episode before writing separate statements, apparent agreement may partly reflect shared post-event information. An investigation should ask when each person first described the event, whether accounts were independent, and how details evolved. The established research on post-event misinformation supports studying these questions without assuming that all reports share one origin.
Paranormal Beliefs and False-Memory Performance
Holding a paranormal belief differs from reporting a personal extraordinary experience, and both differ from performance on a memory experiment. It is scientifically important to measure those constructs independently.
In a study with 100 participants, Wilson and French (2006) questioned people about purported footage of various news events, including footage that did not exist. Thirty-six percent reported remembering the nonexistent footage. Those reporting the false footage also scored higher on certain measures of paranormal belief and experience. The findings are associations in a recruited sample under a particular questionnaire design. They do not demonstrate that a person with a paranormal belief is mentally ill, dishonest, or unable to distinguish ordinary reality from imagination.
The nonsignificant false-memory difference in French and colleagues (2008) and the task differences identified by Devitt and Foster (2026) caution against proposing a single cognitive explanation for all extraordinary reports.
Memory Confidence, Vividness, and Emotion
A recollection can feel certain because it is familiar, image-rich, emotionally significant, or embedded in a coherent story. Those are meaningful qualities of subjective experience. They are not equivalent to independent verification of the event. Source-monitoring theory explains why memory qualities can inform source judgments while sometimes misleading them.
A person may remember the fear of an unexplained nighttime event with great accuracy even if the external explanation is uncertain. Another may remember seeing a figure while being unsure whether the perception occurred during waking, sleep transition, or a dream. The appropriate response is to preserve the distinctions between observation, recollection, interpretation, and corroboration.
Individual Differences, Sleep, and Context
Laboratory susceptibility varies with task and circumstance. There is no established questionnaire or word-list test that can determine the accuracy of an individual's extraordinary autobiographical report. Devitt and Foster's recent experimental work illustrates the limited correspondence among types of false-memory measures.
Sleep loss can also affect some memory tasks, but effects depend on timing and protocol. Frenda and colleagues (2014) found that total sleep deprivation increased errors in a misinformation task when it occurred before event encoding; they did not observe the same significant effect when deprivation occurred after encoding. That specific laboratory result cannot be used to classify an individual unusual experience.
Cultural context shapes the language available for an unexpected event and the narratives through which it may be understood. Researchers can study such influences without evaluating the truth of religious traditions or equating religious faith with paranormal belief. Questions about sacred practices, religious meaning, and faith identity belong to the separate psychology-of-religion field.
How Scientists Evaluate Extraordinary-Memory Claims
The strongest evaluations begin with a precisely described claim and an evidence chronology. Investigators can preserve original statements, messages, dated recordings, photographs, and independent observations; document the conditions under which material was produced; and identify whether witnesses exchanged information before giving accounts. Such records can constrain interpretations, but their authenticity and independence must also be established.
A phrase such as “I felt somebody behind me” documents a sensation. “An unseen person was physically present” adds a hypothesis about an external cause. The first statement can be investigated as experience; the second requires separate evidence. Similarly, “I remembered the warning after the accident” and “I recorded the warning three days beforehand” have different evidentiary implications.
When a proposed explanation remains unverified, the scientifically accurate conclusion may be insufficient evidence. An unexplained event is an invitation for additional careful inquiry rather than automatic proof of any particular explanation.
Five evidence categories that should remain distinct
A documented experience means that a person's reported perception, memory, or emotional response has been recorded. An established mechanism is a reproducible psychological or physiological effect under specified conditions, such as some experimentally demonstrated misinformation effects. Preliminary evidence refers to a finding limited by sample size, design, or incomplete replication. Plausible interpretation describes a mechanism consistent with observed features but unproved for the particular case. A contested claim concerns an explanatory assertion that has not achieved adequate independent confirmation. Clinical diagnosis is a separate professional process using recognized criteria and appropriate evaluation.
The categories serve different purposes. A verified psychological mechanism need not have caused a given encounter. A sincere report need not establish a proposed external agent. A person can experience meaningful distress without meeting the criteria for a psychiatric disorder.
Scientific Limitations: What the Research Cannot Establish
Small and self-selected extraordinary-experience samples create uncertainty about who participates and whether results generalize to people outside the study. Correlations between belief, imagery, absorption, and memory-task performance cannot show which characteristic caused another. Retrospective interviews may occur after repeated retellings and exposure to existing stories. Experimental induction may differ substantially from spontaneously occurring experiences.
There are also measurement limitations. The word “false memory” has been used for mistaken recognition, acceptance of a suggestion, vivid imagery, and complete autobiographical recollection. Scoboria and colleagues (2017) explicitly distinguished these outcomes. Muschalla and Schönborn (2021) identified substantial heterogeneity across laboratory induction methods.
The contradictory findings of Clancy and colleagues (2002) and French and colleagues (2008) further underscore the need for adequately powered replication. Evidence is strengthened by preregistration, transparent outcome definitions, independent recruitment, blinded coding, and publication of null findings as well as positive results.
A statistical effect size in a meta-analysis is not an estimate of the percentage of extraordinary memories that are false. Applying group results to an individual person would require evidence of that person's event history, exposure to suggestion, and available corroboration.
Clinical Considerations and Cultural Sensitivity
An unusual experience, vivid memory, paranormal belief, or uncertain recollection is not, by itself, a clinical diagnosis. A person's sleep context, broader health, degree of distress, daily functioning, and other symptoms matter when clinical assessment is appropriate. Researchers and clinicians should avoid diagnosing psychosis, dissociation, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or any other condition from a single narrative.
Sleep-related extraordinary experiences may warrant assessment within sleep medicine; Sleep Paralysis: Symptoms, Hallucinations, and What Helps covers this subject. The clinical framework for certain trance presentations is described in Trance Disorder and Possession Trance Disorder: ICD-11 and Cultural Context. Obsessive fear about whether a forgotten wrongdoing occurred is a distinct clinical search intent addressed in False Memory OCD: What Is It?.
Questions involving distressing memories deserve careful support without pressuring the person to adopt an investigator's favored explanation. Qualified professional evaluation is appropriate when experiences cause significant fear, impair sleep, disrupt daily functioning, or accompany other troubling physical or psychological symptoms.
Practical Guidance for Discussing an Extraordinary Memory
The most evidence-sensitive first step is to allow an open account in the person's own words. Ask what they noticed and remember, what happened next, and when the first description was recorded. Avoid leading questions that introduce beings, motives, locations, objects, or missing events the person has not independently mentioned. Uncertainty and incomplete recollection are legitimate answers.
If a recollection has evolved over time, preserve the earliest version and document the person's later exposure to related information. This is useful for accurate evaluation and avoids unnecessary conflict over memories that cannot currently be independently verified.
Do not use hypnosis, suggestive visualization, repeated pressure, or alleged recovery of hidden memories to prove an extraordinary event. Muschalla and Schönborn's systematic review and Otgaar, Howe, and Patihis (2022) describe the risks of conflating suggestion, belief, and recollection.
In supportive conversation, acknowledging that the experience felt real and important is compatible with withholding judgment about its proposed external origin. Where wellbeing is affected, practical help and appropriate professional care should take priority over efforts to force a definitive narrative.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can someone sincerely remember something that did not happen?
Yes. Laboratory studies demonstrate false recall of details, mistaken recognition, and memory-like reports of suggested autobiographical events. These findings do not require deliberate deception. The rates and meanings of those outcomes depend on the experiment. See Scoboria and colleagues (2017).
Are extraordinary memories usually false?
Research does not provide a valid general percentage of extraordinary memories that are false. Studies address different populations, experiences, and memory tasks. An individual report requires its own evidence.
Does research prove alien-abduction experiences are imagined?
No. Clancy and colleagues (2002) found a laboratory false-memory difference in one sample, whereas French and colleagues (2008) did not reproduce that specific difference in another. These studies examine correlates and mechanisms, not definitive verification of individual encounters.
Can suggestion create a detailed autobiographical memory?
Some controlled procedures have produced elaborate inaccurate memory-like reports. Researchers distinguish partial belief, imagery, acceptance of suggestion, and complete recollection. Scoboria and colleagues' mega-analysis explains why the distinctions change reported rates.
Is a vivid, emotional memory more likely to be accurate?
Vividness and emotional intensity are characteristics of the current memory experience. They do not independently verify the event. McNally and colleagues (2004) measured strong responses associated with recalled extraordinary events without establishing their external cause.
Can hypnosis verify an unusual event?
Hypnosis and suggestive imagery are not independent methods of historical verification. Information emerging in such settings still requires external corroboration. The 2021 systematic review addresses induction of beliefs and memories under various procedures.
What does research say about memories recovered years later?
Delayed recollection raises questions about forgetting, suggestion, ordinary retrieval, and the quality of corroboration. Its timing alone does not prove accuracy or inaccuracy. Otgaar, Howe, and Patihis (2022) review disputed claims concerning repression and recovery.
How can a premonition be evaluated fairly?
Preserve a dated, independently verifiable record made before the later event, then compare its exact language and timing with what occurred. A retrospective account is less informative about the original prediction. Source-monitoring research explains the relevant memory question.
Do paranormal beliefs indicate mental illness?
Paranormal belief itself is not a diagnosis. Associations with selected experimental measures in particular samples are not grounds for diagnosing individuals. Wilson and French (2006) studied correlations, not diagnostic criteria.
When should a person seek professional support?
Persistent distress, substantial sleep disruption, impaired functioning, or additional worrying symptoms are reasons for an appropriate clinical evaluation. The purpose is to support health and wellbeing while respecting uncertainty about the event.
Conclusion
Research establishes that memory can be reconstructed, that some post-event suggestions alter reports, and that some experimental procedures can produce false autobiographical recollection. Studies specific to extraordinary encounters also contain important replication limits and inconsistent group findings. The scientific position is to distinguish the remembered experience, its development, and any independent evidence for the claimed event. This method respects the person while preserving the evidentiary standards needed for reliable conclusions.
Related Articles
References
Arce, R., Selaya, A., Sanmarco, J., & Fariña, F. (2023). Implanting rich autobiographical false memories: Meta-analysis for forensic practice and judicial judgment making. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 23(4), 100386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100386
Clancy, S. A., McNally, R. J., Schacter, D. L., Lenzenweger, M. F., & Pitman, R. K. (2002). Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 455–461. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12150421/
Devitt, A. L., & Foster, J. (2026). Age-related changes in susceptibility to false memories in different tasks. Memory & Cognition, 54(3), 748–766. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01778-x
French, C. C., Santomauro, J., Hamilton, V., Fox, R., & Thalbourne, M. A. (2008). Psychological aspects of the alien contact experience. Cortex, 44(10), 1387–1395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2007.11.011
Frenda, S. J., Patihis, L., Loftus, E. F., Lewis, H. C., & Fenn, K. M. (2014). Sleep deprivation and false memories. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1674–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534694
Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212420
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705
McNally, R. J., & Clancy, S. A. (2005). Sleep paralysis, sexual abuse, and space alien abduction. Transcultural Psychiatry, 42(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461505050715
McNally, R. J., Lasko, N. B., Clancy, S. A., Macklin, M. L., Pitman, R. K., & Orr, S. P. (2004). Psychophysiological responding during script-driven imagery in people reporting abduction by space aliens. Psychological Science, 15(7), 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00707.x
Muschalla, B., & Schönborn, F. (2021). Induction of false beliefs and false memories in laboratory studies—A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 28(5), 1194–1209. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2567
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., & Patihis, L. (2022). What science tells us about false and repressed memories. Memory, 30(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2020.1870699
Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803
Scoboria, A., et al. (2017). A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory, 25(2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747
Spanos, N. P., Burgess, C. A., & Burgess, M. F. (1994). Past-life identities, UFO abductions, and satanic ritual abuse: The social construction of memories. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42(4), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207149408409369
Wilson, K., & French, C. C. (2006). The relationship between susceptibility to false memories, dissociativity, and paranormal belief and experience. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(8), 1493–1502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.008
Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4), 934–945. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8064252/