CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 219Memory Processes and InfluencesIdentity, Memory, and TherapyCognitive Functions and Memory

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Memory Distortions Develop Over Time: Recollections of the O.J. Simpson Trial Verdict After 15 and 32 Months

Schmolck, H., Buffalo, E.A., Squire, L.R.·2000·Psychological Science
DOI 10.1111/1467-9280.00212
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Fifteen or 32 months after the verdict was announced in the O.J. Simpson murder trial, we asked college students about how they had heard the news, and we compared their responses with what they had told us 3 days after the verdict. Our study is the first to have assessed recollective accuracy at two different intervals more than 1 year after a noted public event. The quality of the recollections after 32 months was strikingly different from the quality of the recollections after 15 months. After 15 months, 50% of the recollections were highly accurate, and only 11% contained major errors or distortions. After 32 months, only 29% of the recollections were highly accurate, and more than 40% contained major distortions. Retention interval appears to be an important factor determining the frequency of memory distortions, and differences in the retention interval across studies may account for some of the contradictions in the flashbulb-memory literature. Metamemory errors and source memory difficulties are a likely basis of poor memory performance after long retention intervals. The results highlight the marked qualitative changes in recollections that can occur between 1 and 3 years after information has been acquired.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9280.00212

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 219

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Schmolck, H., Buffalo, E. A., & Squire, L. R.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychiatry
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2000-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
39-45
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
DOI
10.1111/1467-9280.00212
OpenAlex
W2162591179
Cited by
219
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1z01mh002460-04)
  • National Institute on Aging (2T32AG00216, T32AG000216)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH2460)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Identity, Memory, and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
memory distortion, flashbulb memory, O.J. Simpson trial, retention interval, source memory, long-term memory, eyewitness memory
MeSH terms
Adult, Crime, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Public Opinion, Time Factors, Multimedia

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