Cited by 29Memory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Affect and Memory in Retrospective Reports

Banaji, Mahzarin R., Hardin, Curtis·1994·Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-1-4612-2624-6_6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Much of the evidence for an unpleasantness bias comes from comparisons of arousing negative stimuli with neutral stimuli, therefore providing equal support for an intensity bias.

    “Yet much of the evidence for an unpleasantness bias comes from comparisons of arousing negative stimuli with neutral stimuli (e.g., Banaji & Hardin, 1994;Bradley et al., 2001;Carter, 1936), therefore providing equal support for an intensity bias.”

    From Emotional Intensity Predicts Autobiographical Memory Experience (2004) · cites this paper as Banaji & Hardin, 1994

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C.
Venue
Autobiographical Memory and the Validity of Retrospective Reports
Published
1994
Pages
71-86
OpenAlex
W2240001830
Cited by
29
References
0
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.20
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
Keywords
retrospective reports, memory, affect, self-report validity, epistemology of psychology, self-reflection, cognitive processes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review