Cited by 217Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryNeurobiology of Language and Bilingualism

Editing episodic memory following the identification of error

Wilkes, A. L., Leatherbarrow, M.·1988·The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A

Abstract

The editing of an episodic memory record in order to remove incorrect information embedded within naturalistic communications is an important though underinvestigated phenomenon. Experiment 1 deals with the recall and comprehension of a sequence of messages following the delayed identification of one of the messages as being incorrect. Two styles of correction were employed, and it was found that in neither case was the memory record edited effectively. Inferences based upon the old information continued to be drawn although subjects had clearly recalled that it had been subsequently corrected. Experiment 2 showed that editing could be effective if the old information did not play a central role in the message sequence. It is concluded that the observed difficulties in editing arise when old information has to be excised from the episodic record; the uncontested insertion of new information retrospectively did not present the same difficulty. Reading span was used to monitor subjects’ editing strategies, and from its association with performance measures it is concluded that contradictions in the memory record are not dealt with immediately but are resolved locally when comprehension is questioned. At this time inferences are drawn based upon the most recent version of the contradictory messages. This recency strategy breaks down when the old information provides a better fit to the question posed. Some implications of these findings for models of memory storage are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02724988843000168

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • People can still be influenced by retracted misinformation even when they clearly remember and understand a subsequent correction.

    “Even when people clearly remember and understand a subsequent correction when asked about it immediately (suggesting that they have encoded it and can retrieve and potentially comply with it), they can still be influenced by the effect of the retracted misinformation.”
  • Continued reliance on discredited information is very difficult to correct.

    “Classical laboratory research on memory for inferences [10, 6] demonstrates that the continued reliance on discredited information is very difficult to correct.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M.
Affiliations
University of Dundee (GB)
Venue
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A
Published
1988-05
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
361-387
ISSN
  • 0272-4987 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0740
OpenAlex
W2229830397
Cited by
217
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (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 › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
Keywords
error correction, memory updating, recency effect, reading span, conflicting information

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