Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 561

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 274 of the 274 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward a Psychology of Memory Accuracy

Koriat, Asher, Goldsmith, Morris, Pansky, Ainat·2000·Annual Review of Psychology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There has been unprecedented interest in recent years in questions pertaining to accuracy and distortion in memory. This interest, catalyzed in part by real-life problems, marks a significant departure from the quantity-oriented approach that has characterized much of traditional memory research. We outline a correspondence metaphor of memory underlying accuracy-oriented research, and show how the features of this metaphor are manifested across the disparate bodies of research reviewed here. These include work in the Gestalt tradition, spatial memory, memory for gist, schema theory, source monitoring, fluency misattributions, false recall and recognition, postevent misinformation, false memories, eyewitness research, and autobiographical memory. In examining the dynamics of memory accuracy, we highlight the importance of metacognitive monitoring and control processes. We end by discussing some of the methodological, theoretical, and metatheoretical issues inherent in accuracy-oriented research, attempting to prepare the groundwork for a more coherent psychology of memory accuracy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481

Cites

274 of 274 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 274 references

Research works printed but not linked: 67

  1. Bartlett FC. 1932.Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  2. Benjamin AS, Bjork RA. 1996. Retrieval fluency as a metacognitive index. InImplicit Memory and Metacognition,ed. LM Reder, pp. 309–38. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  3. 1905, Ann. Psychol., 11, 128
  4. Brewer WF. 1988b. Qualitative analysis of the recalls of randomly sampled autobiographical events. See Gruneberg et al 1988, 1:263–68
  5. Ceci SJ. 1995. False beliefs: some developmental and clinical considerations. See Schacter 1995, pp. 91–125
  6. 1994, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Psychol., 42, 304
  7. Coll R, Coll JH. 1994. Memory trace development along a coarse-to-fine dimension: a study supporting a progressively finer attributes theory.Curr. Psychol.: Dev. Learn. Pers. Soc.13:60–76 · doi:10.1007/bf02686858
  8. Conway MA. 1990.Autobiographical Memory: An Introduction.Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press
  9. 10.1037//0003-066X.46.1.19 · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.46.1.19
  10. Conway MA, Gathercole SE, Cornoldi C, eds. 1998.Theories of Memory II.Hove, Sussex: Psychological Press
  11. 10.1006/jmla.1994.1036 · doi:10.1006/jmla.1994.1036
  12. 10.1037//0021-9010.83.5.745 · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.83.5.745
  13. 10.1037//0033-295X.104.1.148 · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.104.1.148
  14. Fisher RP. 1999. Probing knowledge structures. See Gopher & Koriat 1999, pp. 537–56 · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1480.003.0027
  15. Fisher RP, Cutler BL. 1995. The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. InPsychology, Law, and Criminal Justice: International Developments in Research and Practice,ed. G Davies, S Lloyd-Bostock, pp. 21–28. Berlin: De Gruyter · doi:10.1515/9783110879483.21
  16. Fisher RP, McCauley MR, Geiselman RE. 1994. Improving eyewitness testimony with the cognitive interview. See Ross et al 1994, pp. 245–69 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511759192.013
  17. 10.1037//0033-2909.113.1.44 · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.113.1.44 · Paper page
  18. Fruzzetti AE, Toland K, Teller SA, Loftus EF. 1992. Memory and eyewitness testimony. InAspects of Memory,ed. MM Gruneberg, PE Morris, 1:18–50. London: Routledge
  19. Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, eds. 1998.The Handbook of Social Psychology,Vol. 1. Boston: McGraw-Hill
  20. Goldsmith M, Koriat A. 1999. The strategic regulation of memory reporting: mechanisms and performance consequences. See Gopher & Koriat 1999, pp. 373–400 · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1480.003.0020
  21. 1979, Int. J. Clin. Exp. Psychol., 27, 342
  22. Hirt ER, McDonald HE, Markman KD. 1998. Expectancy effects in reconstructive memory: when the past is just what we expected. See Lynn & McConkey 1998, pp. 62–89
  23. Intraub H, Bodamer JL. 1993. Boundary extension: fundamental aspect of pictorial representation or encoding artifact?J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn.19:1387–97 · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.19.6.1387
  24. Jacoby LL, Kelley CM, Dywan J. 1989b. Memory attributions. InVarieties of Memory and Consciousness: Essays in Honour of Endel Tulving,ed. HL Roediger III, FIM Craik, pp. 391–422. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
  25. 10.1037//0882-7974.10.4.507 · doi:10.1037//0882-7974.10.4.507
  26. 10.1037//0033-2909.114.1.3 · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.114.1.3 · Paper page
  27. Kelley CM. 1999. Subjective experience as a basis for “objective” judgments: effects of past experience on judgments of difficulty. See Gopher & Koriat 1999, pp. 515–36 · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1480.003.0026
  28. 10.3758/BF03197463 · doi:10.3758/bf03197463
  29. Koriat A. 1998. Metamemory: the feeling of knowing and its vagaries. InAdvances in Psychological Science,ed. M Sabourin, F Craik, 2:461–79. Hove, UK: Psychology Press
  30. Koriat A. 2000. Control processes in remembering. InThe Oxford Handbook of Memory,ed. E Tulving, FIM Craik. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195122657.003.0021
  31. 10.1017/S0140525X97320019 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x97320019
  32. Koriat A, Goldsmith M. 1998a. Methodological and substantive implications of a metatheoretical distinction: more on correspondence versus storehouse metaphors of memory.Behav. Brain Sci.21:165–67 · doi:10.1017/s0140525x98230974
  33. Liben LS, ed. 1998. Special issue.J. Exp. Child Psychol.71(2):79–209 · doi:10.1006/jecp.1998.2463
  34. Lindsay DS. 1998. Depolarizing views on recovered memory experiences. See Lynn & McConkey 1998, pp. 481–94
  35. Loftus EF. 1979a.Eyewitness Testimony.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  36. 1997, Sci. Am., 277, 50
  37. Mandler JM. 1979. Categorical and schematic organization in memory. InMemory Organization and Structure,ed. RC Puff, pp. 259–99. New York: Academic
  38. Moscovitch M. 1995. Confabulation. See Schacter 1995, pp. 226–51
  39. Neisser U. 1982. Snapshots or benchmarks. InMemory Observed: Remembering in Natural Contexts,ed. U Neisser, pp. 43–48. San Francisco: Freeman
  40. Neisser U. 1988. Time present and time past. See Gruneberg et al 1988, 2:545–60
  41. 10.1037//0003-066X.46.1.34 · DOI
  42. 1996, Behav. Brain Sci., 19, 203
  43. Neisser U, Winograd E, Weldon MS. 1991.Remembering the earthquake: “What I experienced” vs. “How I heard the news.”Presented at Ann. Meet. Psychonom. Soc., 32nd, San Francisco, CA · doi:10.1037/e665402011-646
  44. 10.1037//0033-295X.105.2.299 · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.105.2.299
  45. Payne DG, Blackwell JM. 1998. Truth in memory: Caveat emptor. See Lynn & McConkey 1998, pp. 32–61
  46. Pennebaker JW, Memon A. 1996. Recovered memories in context: thoughts and elaborations on Bowers and Farvolden (1996).Psychol. Bull.119:381–85 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.381
  47. 10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.144 · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.144
  48. 10.3758/BF03197261 · doi:10.3758/bf03197261
  49. Read JD, Lindsay DS, Nicholls T. 1998. The relation between confidence and accuracy in eyewitness identification studies: Is the conclusion changing? InEyewitness Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives,ed. CP Thompson, DJ Herrmann, pp. 107–30. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  50. 10.1068/p260207 · doi:10.1068/p260207
  51. 10.1037//0021-9010.82.3.416 · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.82.3.416
  52. Roediger HL, McDermott KB, Robinson KJ. 1998. The role of associative processes in creating false memories. See Conway et al 1998, pp. 187–245
  53. 10.1037//0022-3514.40.4.627 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.40.4.627
  54. Schacter DL, ed. 1995.Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  55. 10.1037//0003-066X.54.3.182 · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.54.3.182 · Paper page
  56. Schneider W, Bjorklund DF. 1998. Memory. InHandbook of Child Psychology: Cognition, Perception and Language,Vol. 2, ed. W Damon, D Kuhn, RS Siegler. New York: Wiley
  57. Tulving E. 1983.Elements of Episodic Memory.Oxford, UK: Clarendon
  58. Tversky B. 1998. Three dimensions of spatial cognition. See Conway et al 1998, pp. 259–75
  59. Walker NE, Hunt JS. 1998. Interviewing child victim-witnesses: how you ask is what you get. InEyewitness Memory: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives,ed. CP Thompson, DJ Herrmann, pp. 55–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
  60. Weingardt KR, Toland HK, Loftus EF. 1994. Reports of suggested memories: Do people truly believe them? See Ross et al 1994, pp. 3–26 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511759192.002
  61. Wells GL, Murray DM. 1984. Eyewitness confidence. InEyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perpectives,ed. GL Wells, EF Loftus, pp. 155–70. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  62. 10.1037//0021-9010.78.5.835 · doi:10.1037//0021-9010.78.5.835
  63. Wells GL, Turtle JW. 1988. What is the best way to encode faces? See Gruneberg et al 1988, 1:163–68
  64. 1982, Hum. Learn., 1, 171
  65. 10.1037/h0026463 · doi:10.1037/h0026463
  66. Winograd E. 1994. The authenticity and utility of memories. InThe Remembering Self: Construction and Accuracy in the Self Narrative,ed. U Neisser, R Fivush, pp. 243–51. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752858.015
  67. Wulf F. 1922. Beitrage zur Psychologie der Gestalt: VI. Uber die Veranderung von Vorstellungen (Gedachtniss und Gestalt).Psychol. Forsch.1:333–75 · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-29583-0_1

Cited by

See all 561

Metadata

Authors
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A.
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2000-02
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
481-537
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
DOI
10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481
OpenAlex
W2102445186
Cited by
561
References
274
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Toward a Psychology of Memory Accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481
The paper
Koriat, A., Goldsmith, M., & Pansky, A. (2000). Toward a Psychology of Memory Accuracy. Annual Review of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.481

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.