Cited by 2,812Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Automatic and effortful processes in memory.

Hasher, Lynn, Zacks, Rose T.·1979·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0096-3445.108.3.356

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T.
Affiliations
Temple University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
1979-09
Volume
108
Issue
3
Pages
356-388
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2031132359
Cited by
2,812
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 59 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 80 · 2012: 58
FWCI
16.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
automatic processes, memory, cognitive control, dual-process models

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