False Memories: How They Form and What Research Shows
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 12, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Memory & Forgetting · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Human memory can produce detailed recollections of events or details that did not occur as remembered. These false memories are a well-established subject of experimental psychology. The person experiencing one can be entirely sincere, confident, and emotionally affected. The scientific question is whether the remembered content matches what happened; the psychological question is how that remembered content arose.
Research has demonstrated false recall of words never presented, memory reports influenced by later misinformation, and memory-like accounts of fabricated autobiographical events. Each method measures a different outcome. The findings establish that remembering involves reconstruction and can be inaccurate, while the accuracy of a particular person's life memory still requires independent evidence. See the American Psychological Association's definition and Schacter and colleagues' review of memory distortion.
What Is a False Memory?
A false memory is a recollection that incorrectly represents an event, action, object, statement, or detail, including a recollection of something that never happened. A small error, such as remembering a nonexistent object in a scene, and a substantially inaccurate personal episode both fall within the broad research concept. The error is defined by the relationship to the event, rather than the strength of the person's conviction.
A student may believe the word “sleep” appeared on a list containing “bed,” “rest,” and “dream.” Someone may vividly remember telling a colleague something they only planned to say. A witness may incorporate an inaccurate detail from a later interview into a report of the original incident. These examples involve different forms of source, associative, and reconstructive error.
The phrase false memory is a cognitive description, not a psychiatric diagnosis. The APA Dictionary also states that “false memory syndrome” is not an accepted diagnostic term. Ordinary memory errors do not diagnose an illness; psychological symptoms, memory testing, clinical impairment, and the factual status of a recollection must be assessed separately.
False recall, false recognition, false belief, and false recollection
False recall means producing an item or detail absent from a presented experience. False recognition means incorrectly judging that an item was previously encountered. False autobiographical belief means thinking a suggested event probably occurred without necessarily feeling that one personally remembers it. False recollection is an experience with memory-like qualities, which may include imagery, apparently specific details, or a sense of reexperiencing an occasion.
Those distinctions matter when interpreting studies. A participant who says that an event “probably happened” has not necessarily formed a developed episodic memory. Brewin and Andrews separated autobiographical belief, recollective experience, and confidence in their systematic review. Scoboria and colleagues used multiple criteria for classifying reports rather than treating every acceptance of suggestion as a full false memory.
False memory also differs from forgetting. In ordinary forgetting, a person cannot retrieve something or has lost access to details. In false remembering, a person reports content that is inaccurate. Both may occur together when partial information is supplemented by later knowledge or an inference.
Why Can Human Memory Become Inaccurate?
Remembering typically reconstructs an account from encoded information, retrieval cues, semantic knowledge, and the current context. The system can preserve useful meaning without preserving every original word or sensory detail. The same flexibility supports understanding and planning, yet sometimes lets an inferred detail feel like an original experience.
For example, two friends might recall the main point of a conversation correctly while disagreeing about the exact promise made. One remembers “I will send it,” another remembers “I may be able to send it.” Later expectations can make one version feel more familiar. Establishing the wording requires a recording or another contemporaneous record, not an assessment of who sounds more confident.
Schacter, Guerin, and St Jacques discuss how certain distortions relate to generally useful operations such as semantic processing, imagining future events, and memory updating. Calling these processes adaptive is an explanatory perspective, not a claim that false reports are harmless.
Associative activation and gist memory
Related ideas can activate a concept that was never actually presented. A list of words such as “bed,” “rest,” “dream,” and “awake” activates “sleep.” During recall or recognition, the unpresented word may seem familiar enough to be reported as studied.
Fuzzy-trace theory distinguishes gist representations, which capture meaning and patterns, from verbatim representations, which preserve more specific aspects of the original experience. A person can remember the theme of a list and forget the detail that excludes a plausible but absent item. Brainerd and Reyna's theoretical account is influential, while alternative and complementary models examine associative activation, monitoring, and retrieval decisions.
An error in a laboratory word-list task is evidence about those operations under specified conditions. It should not be treated as the same psychological event as an elaborate autobiographical recollection.
Source monitoring and imagination
Source monitoring is the evaluation of where information originated: direct perception, imagination, conversation, media, inference, or another source. The framework developed by Johnson, Hashtroudi, and Lindsay describes how people use perceptual qualities, context, and cognitive operations to make these judgments.
A person may accurately retain a statement but incorrectly attribute it to firsthand observation rather than a story they later heard. A repeatedly imagined episode can also become familiar, making it harder in some circumstances to identify the source of the familiarity. Source-monitoring decisions often work well; false memories reflect cases in which those decisions or the underlying information are insufficient.
Imagination does not automatically generate a false memory. Personal relevance, the strength of suggestion, repetition, corroborating claims, prior knowledge, and the researcher's definition of “memory” influence measured outcomes.
Expectations, schemas, and reconstruction
Schemas are organized expectations about typical situations. They help people understand events and generate coherent accounts. Sometimes they supply a plausible action or object that did not occur. A person might remember a server offering a menu simply because that normally happens at a restaurant.
An expected detail can be an inference made during perception, during later recall, or while telling the story. To infer a mechanism, researchers must examine what participants saw, what they learned later, and how they were tested. Plausibility alone never proves that a detail was invented.
Four Major Scientific Approaches to Studying False Memories
Controlled experiments can document what participants originally encountered and compare their subsequent responses with that record. This creates stronger evidence than judging memory from how a person's story sounds. The four major methods address partially different vulnerabilities.
1. The Deese–Roediger–McDermott (DRM) paradigm
Participants study several semantically related words. The researcher deliberately omits a highly associated “critical lure,” then measures whether participants later recall or recognize that lure. In Roediger and McDermott's 1995 experiments, false recall and recognition of omitted associates were substantial, and some responses were made with high confidence.
These famous results show that false memory can arise without a misleading interviewer. Their percentages are specific to the words, presentation, retention interval, and testing conditions used. They are not estimates of how often people invent childhood events.
The value of the method is excellent control of what was presented. The limitation is the distance between recognizing a single word and recalling a real-world event. Gallo's 2010 review details the multiple processes contributing to DRM errors and cautions against overly simple generalization.
2. The misinformation effect
Participants observe an event and later encounter inaccurate post-event information through questions, descriptions, or another person's account. Researchers then test whether the inaccurate detail influences what participants report.
In the landmark Loftus and Palmer experiment80011-3), the verb used in a question about a filmed traffic collision altered average speed estimates; wording was also associated with later reports about broken glass that was not shown. The result illustrates how questions can influence reports, but an incorrect answer does not automatically show that the original trace was erased.
The modern literature distinguishes source confusion, interference, response strategies, and possible changes in a person's recollection. A 2024 systematic review examines cognitive abilities and misinformation susceptibility. The specialized eyewitness pathway has its own English Hub canonical: The Misinformation Effect in Eyewitness Memory.
3. Imagination inflation and false feedback
Imagination inflation describes an increase in the belief that an event occurred after imagining it. False-feedback experiments present a supposedly credible but fabricated account about a participant's past. These manipulations can make an event appear more plausible or personally familiar.
Changes in an estimated likelihood are distinct from a fully experienced episodic memory. The Brewin and Andrews review found that imagination and false-feedback approaches generally produced modest shifts in belief for the reviewed childhood-event tasks. Describing all such shifts as implanted memories overstates the evidence.
4. Autobiographical memory implantation
Implantation studies use personalized stories, apparent family corroboration, guided imagery, repeated interviewing, or combinations of these to suggest a fabricated past event. Researchers assess whether participants accept the event, elaborate details, report images, or describe a subjective memory experience.
The historical Loftus and Pickrell lost-in-the-mall study is an influential early example. Its frequently cited proportion cannot be generalized to every memory, person, or real-world interview.
The method has high relevance to personal-memory claims, while important limitations concern sample selection, participants' understanding of the task, interviewer behavior, event plausibility, and classification criteria. These are central issues when interpreting research for law or therapy.
Can Scientists Implant a Complete False Childhood Memory?
Experiments show that some participants develop memory-like reports about fabricated childhood experiences. The extent of those reports varies, and researchers disagree about the appropriate threshold for calling one a full memory.
Brewin and Andrews estimated that some recollective experience was elicited in an average of 47% of participants in the memory-implantation studies they reviewed, but only 15% were rated as likely to have full memories. These percentages describe their study selection and coding criteria.
In a mega-analysis of eight studies involving 423 participants, Scoboria and colleagues classified 30.4% of reports as false memories under their multicomponent scheme, with a further 23% showing partial acceptance of the proposed event. These categories must remain distinct.
A systematic review of 59 experimental articles found heterogeneous results across guided imagination, feedback, and implantation methods. A later meta-analysis of 30 rich-autobiographical-memory studies found large effects under its chosen statistical framework. Its standardized effect size is a comparison statistic, not an individual's probability of developing a false memory.
The reliable conclusion is about demonstrated possibility under certain procedures. These studies do not let an observer declare that a particular allegation or recollection is fabricated without independent evidence.
Can False Memories Feel Real?
Yes. False recollections can have imagery, familiarity, personal meaning, and high confidence. Their subjective quality sometimes resembles an accurate memory. Conversely, accurate memories may be uncertain, fragmentary, or unemotional.
Memory accuracy concerns correspondence with the past. Memory confidence concerns how certain someone feels about that correspondence. Confidence can be altered by feedback, social agreement, and familiarity. Both accuracy and confidence must be assessed with attention to when and how they were measured.
A vivid “flashbulb” memory of learning about a public tragedy can still change across retellings. The presence of a strong emotional response establishes the importance of the remembered experience to that individual; it does not independently verify each detail. False recollection cannot be diagnosed through vividness, tears, a bodily sensation, or certainty.
Why Repeating a Story Can Change Its Later Remembering
Every retelling retrieves information in a new context. People may emphasize different details, blend personal observations with information learned later, and become familiar with the version they have repeated most often. Repetition can support accurate remembering when the content is correct, and it may also reinforce an inaccurate detail.
A distinction is needed between reconstruction and reconsolidation. Experimental reconsolidation research investigates circumstances in which reactivated memories become susceptible to subsequent modification. It does not demonstrate that every ordinary act of remembering rewrites all of a stored memory. Beckers and Kindt's review discusses boundary conditions, conflicting clinical evidence, and challenges in translating laboratory effects.
A more reliable way to check a repeated account is to compare it with contemporaneous material: messages, earlier records, or statements preserved before exposure to later narratives. Such evidence also has limitations but can show when a detail first appeared.
False Memories in Children, Younger Adults, and Older Adults
Age influences knowledge, semantic processing, language, suggestibility, and the use of source cues. The direction and size of false-memory effects depend on the task. A child may be more influenced by some suggestive questions while producing fewer meaning-based DRM errors than older participants in particular conditions.
A study by Devitt and Foster, published online in 2025 and in a 2026 journal issue, compared younger and older adults across DRM, misinformation, and memory-conjunction tasks. Associations among different false-memory measures were generally weak or absent apart from task- or subgroup-specific patterns. A person's performance on one test is therefore an inadequate universal index of memory reliability.
Children's investigative interviews benefit from well-designed, age-sensitive procedures. Research on the NICHD structured interviewing protocol and a meta-analysis supports using open-ended invitations and reducing suggestive or forced-choice prompts. Such methods improve investigative quality; they do not certify that every statement is true.
Age differences should not be equated with dementia, and everyday memory errors are not diagnostic signs of neurological disease. A clinical question about substantial functional decline requires assessment of symptoms, history, and impairment.
Do Some People Have More False Memories Than Others?
People differ in performance across experiments, but there is no single validated everyday “false-memory susceptibility score.” A highly associative word-list response, acceptance of personal feedback, and susceptibility to a misleading interview question can involve partly different processes.
Intelligence, personality labels, age, or vivid imagery cannot be used alone to verify whether an individual's memory is true. The 2024 review of cognitive abilities and eyewitness misinformation describes mixed evidence, and Devitt and Foster's comparison emphasizes the lack of a universal relationship among paradigms.
A brief internet demonstration can show how a laboratory illusion works, but it cannot settle disputed autobiographical facts or provide a clinical diagnosis.
What Is the Difference Between a False Memory and a Lie?
A false memory is an error of remembered content or recollective experience. A lie involves knowingly communicating something the speaker believes false with an intention to deceive. A person can sincerely give an inaccurate account; another can remember accurately but deliberately misrepresent what happened.
Conflicting accounts within families or workplaces therefore require evidence before attributing dishonesty. Agreement is also not absolute proof: two people may share post-event information and begin using the same inaccurate description. Independent earliest accounts are more valuable than convergence after discussion.
False Memories in Eyewitness Testimony
Legal judgments sometimes depend on observations made quickly, in difficult conditions, and recalled after multiple conversations. A witness may be influenced by the initial opportunity to see an event, later questions, co-witness discussions, identification feedback, and the passage of time.
The National Research Council's scientific consensus report examines perception and eyewitness identification, recommending evidence-based interviewing and identification practices. Confidence measured immediately under well-controlled identification conditions can be informative in some circumstances. Confidence arising after confirmation or repeated feedback has a different evidentiary history.
Good practice includes recording the earliest account, preserving the precise wording of questions, using open-ended prompts, allowing a witness to say “I don't know,” documenting exposure to other accounts, and keeping witnesses' first descriptions independent. These procedures reduce preventable contamination without claiming that any one recollection is infallible.
Recovered Memories, Suggestion, and Psychotherapy
Later-recalled experiences may have different origins. Memory can be incomplete, forgotten for ordinary reasons, cued by later information, or shaped by suggestion. The vividness of a recovered recollection does not determine its historical accuracy.
The debate surrounding recovered and allegedly repressed traumatic memories includes substantial scientific and clinical controversy. Dodier, Otgaar, and Mangiulli's 2024 article surveys cognitive, motivational, and biological explanations beyond a simplistic opposition between all recovered memories being accurate and all being fabricated.
In clinical care, distress deserves appropriate attention regardless of whether every historical detail can be verified. Methods that presuppose a hidden event, pressure someone to invent details, or treat symptoms as proof of a particular childhood history can contaminate evidence. Therapy and forensic investigation have different objectives. A therapist can help with present suffering, while claims about external facts require appropriate corroboration.
False-memory psychology does not license dismissing abuse disclosures. Nor does it support treating an emerging image, dream, or emotional reaction as proof of an otherwise undocumented event. Maintaining those distinctions respects both scientific evidence and personal welfare.
Dreams, Photos, Imagination, and Extraordinary Experiences
A dream or imagined scenario may become familiar. A suggestive photograph, a compelling story, or repeated social discussion may provide details used during reconstruction. These pathways are possible under defined conditions, rather than inevitable whenever a person imagines something.
A genuine photo confirms only what it actually documents; its frame may omit context. An altered photo can serve as misleading information. Interpretation requires the image's history, authenticity, and relationship to other records.
Some readers encounter false-memory science while evaluating extraordinary personal experiences. Such cases need separation between an initially reported perception, later reconstruction, and independent evidence. The dedicated English Hub article False Memories and Extraordinary Experiences: What Research Shows addresses that narrower question.
How Strong Is the Evidence?
Strong evidence supports the existence of false recall, false recognition, misinformation-related reporting changes, and experimentally induced false autobiographical beliefs or recollective experiences. Controlled experiments can establish an error because the researchers know what was shown or suggested.
Moderate or qualified conclusions concern the magnitude and generalizability of outcomes. Reports vary across samples, interviewers, coding schemes, event types, and delays. It is scientifically inappropriate to transfer the percentage from a word-list task to claims about complex life events.
Explanatory questions also remain open. Errors after a misleading question can involve source attribution, genuine reconstruction, uncertainty, accessibility, and response selection. A changed answer is not sufficient evidence that an original memory was erased. A subjective report of imagery is not always equivalent to a richly developed episodic memory.
The strongest interpretations keep three layers distinct: what participants reported, what an experimental manipulation caused on average, and which internal cognitive process the data can establish. In real cases a fourth layer is needed: independent proof about the external event.
Can False Memories Be Prevented or Corrected?
No technique prevents every memory error. Scientific knowledge nevertheless supports measures that reduce some contamination risks and improve later evaluation.
Preserve relevant records and first statements as early as possible. Seek an open narrative before introducing proposed details. Distinguish personal observation from inference or material learned afterward. Avoid repeatedly asking leading questions. When multiple witnesses are involved, obtain independent accounts before they compare recollections.
Warnings that misinformation may have occurred can improve performance in some experiments. In a meta-analysis of 25 post-warning studies, Blank and Launay found meaningful average reductions in the misinformation effect. This is a specific research finding, not a universal method for restoring historical truth.
Repeated online memory tests, brain games, supplements, or guided visualization cannot certify that a memory is accurate. Improvement on a practiced task does not establish far transfer to real-world autobiographical reliability.
When two people's memories disagree
Identify the factual detail at issue. Compare contemporaneous evidence and the independent earliest versions of each account. Document which information was personally observed and which came from others. Allow uncertainty rather than escalating through leading repetition. Where the stakes concern abuse, criminal evidence, or significant clinical distress, involve qualified professionals in the relevant role.
Common Myths About False Memories
The claim that an emotional memory must be accurate is unsupported because emotion and accuracy are different variables. The claim that an uncertain recollection must be false is equally unsound.
The claim that science can implant any event in any person exaggerates selected laboratory results. The claim that all witnesses are unreliable ignores variation in conditions, procedures, and corroboration. The claim that an online memory quiz can detect a fabricated childhood event mistakes a demonstration of a cognitive illusion for an individual verification method.
Finally, false memories are normal possibilities within human cognition; they are not a universal explanation for trauma reports, intrusive thoughts, dissociative symptoms, ordinary forgetting, or age-related cognitive decline. Those questions have their own scientific and clinical frameworks.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a false memory in simple words?
A false memory is remembering an event or detail inaccurately, including recalling something that was not present or did not occur. The recollection can be sincerely believed.
How do false memories form?
Studied routes include semantic association, memory for gist, source confusion, misleading information encountered after an event, imagined-event rehearsal, false feedback, and suggestive interviewing. Their relative importance depends on the circumstances.
Can a false memory feel as real as a genuine memory?
Yes. Familiarity, vivid images, emotion, and confidence can accompany a false recollection. Those subjective features cannot independently prove whether it is true.
Can someone unintentionally give another person a false memory?
Under some conditions, inaccurate questions, repeated accounts, and personalized false information change other people's reports and beliefs. Whether a particular real-world interaction caused an error requires evidence.
Can false childhood memories be created experimentally?
Yes, some studies have induced recollection-like reports of suggested childhood events. Estimates vary depending on the procedure and whether researchers count belief, partial imagery, or full recollection.
How common are false memories?
There is no meaningful universal percentage across all types of memory and life circumstances. Experimental rates depend on the task, sample, timing, and definition of a memory error.
Are false memories a psychiatric disorder?
No. False memories are studied in cognitive psychology and occur outside clinical populations. “False memory syndrome” is not an accepted diagnosis.
Is false memory OCD the same phenomenon?
No. The informal label false-memory OCD concerns obsessive doubt about the past and repetitive checking or reassurance. It does not establish whether the feared event occurred. See False Memory OCD: What Is It?.
Does thinking about an event repeatedly make it true?
Repetition can increase familiarity or confidence without increasing historical accuracy. Recalling correct information can also support remembering. The result depends on the content and method.
Can a dream later be mistaken for a memory?
Source confusion involving imagined and perceived material is a studied possibility. A dream by itself establishes neither a historical event nor an implanted false memory.
Can hypnosis verify recovered memories?
Hypnosis does not provide an established means of checking historical accuracy. Suggestibility and confidence changes complicate interpretation. Independent evidence remains essential.
Can photographs prove a memory is accurate?
Authentic, properly contextualized photographs may corroborate specific details, but they show only part of a situation. Their authenticity, provenance, and omissions matter.
Are children's memories less reliable than adults'?
The answer differs by task, interview conditions, language development, and the type of error. Careful interviewing can improve the quality of children's reports. No simple age rule determines whether an individual report is accurate.
Can scientists tell that a person is lying from a memory test?
An experimental recognition error or subjective confidence score cannot reliably classify honesty. Lying involves a different question about belief and intention.
How can I check a memory that feels uncertain?
Use independent contemporaneous records when available, distinguish direct observations from inferences, and avoid suggestive attempts to generate details. High-stakes or distressing issues may warrant appropriately qualified help.
Related Articles
The Misinformation Effect in Eyewitness Memory examines post-event information, interviews, and witness reports.
False Memories and Extraordinary Experiences: What Research Shows examines false-memory science in accounts of unusual experiences.
False Memory OCD: What Is It? explains obsessive memory doubt and the relevant clinical distinction.
References
American Psychological Association. (2018). False memory. APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/false-memory
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
Beckers, T., & Kindt, M. (2017). Memory reconsolidation interference as an emerging treatment for emotional disorders: Strengths, limitations, challenges, and opportunities. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045209
Benia, L. R., Hauck-Filho, N., Dillenburg, M., & Stein, L. M. (2015). The NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.1006749
Blank, H., & Launay, C. (2014). How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.03.005
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2002). Fuzzy-trace theory and false memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(5), 164–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00192
Brassil, M., O'Mahony, C., & Greene, C. M. (2024). Do cognitive abilities reduce eyewitness susceptibility to the misinformation effect? A systematic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31, 2410–2436. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02512-5
Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). Creating memories for false autobiographical events in childhood: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3220
Devitt, A. L., & Foster, J. (2026). Age-related changes in susceptibility to false memories in different tasks. Memory & Cognition, 54, 748–766. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-025-01778-x
Dodier, O., Otgaar, H., & Mangiulli, I. (2024). Beyond repressed memory: Current alternative solutions to the controversy. Topics in Cognitive Science, 16(4), 574–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12754
Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition, 38, 833–848. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.7.833
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
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 1201–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720–725. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07
Muschalla, B., & Schönborn, F. (2021). Induction of false beliefs and false memories in laboratory studies—A systematic review. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2567
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891
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
Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A., & St Jacques, P. L. (2011). Memory distortion: An adaptive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.004
Scoboria, A., Wade, K. A., Lindsay, D. S., Azad, T., Strange, D., Ost, J., & Hyman, I. E. (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