Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction

Open access
Ecker, Ullrich K. H., Lewandowsky, Stephan, Swire, Briony, Chang, Darren·2011·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1

Cites

5 of 5 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

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Allport, F. H., & Lepkin, M. (1945). Wartime rumors of waste and special privilege: Why some people believe them. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 40, 3–36. · DOI
  2. Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1–21. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Media distortion damages both science and journalism. New Scientist, 2701, 26–28. · doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(09)60864-2
  4. Bush, J. G., Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). The implications of corrections: Then why did you mention it? In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 112–117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  5. Chabot, R. J., Miller, T. J., & Juola, J. F. (1976). The relationship between repetition and depth of processing. Memory & Cognition, 4, 677–682. · DOI
  6. Craik, F. I. M., Naveh-Benjamin, M., Govoni, R., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 813–825. · DOI
  8. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Apai, J. (2011). Terrorists brought down the plane!—No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 283–310. · DOI
  9. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Chee, A. E. H. (2010). The components of working memory updating: An experimental decomposition and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 170–189. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087–1100. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2002). An endogenous distributed model of ordering in serial recall. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 59–79. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601–613. · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.601 · Paper page
  13. Hintzman, D. L. (2010). How does repetition affect memory? Evidence from judgments of recency. Memory & Cognition, 38, 102–115. · DOI
  14. Jacoby, L. L. (1999). Ironic effects of repetition: Measuring age-related differences in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 3–22. · DOI
  15. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420–1436. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 569–598. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Lewandowsky, S., & Farrell, S. (2008). Short-term memory: New data and a model. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 49, 1–48. · DOI
  18. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2005). Memory for fact, fiction and misinformation: The Iraq War 2003. Psychological Science, 16, 190–195. · DOI
  19. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2009). Misinformation and the ‘War on Terror’: When memory turns fiction into fact. In W. Stritzke, S. Lewandowsky, D. Denemark, J. Clare, & F. Morgan (Eds.), Terrorism and torture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 179–203). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  20. Magliano, J. P., & Radvansky, G. A. (2001). Goal coordination in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 372–376. · DOI
  21. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2008). Forgetting in immediate serial recall: Decay, temporal distinctiveness, or interference? Psychological Review, 115, 544–576. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Payne, B. K., Lambert, A. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2002). Best laid plans: Effects of goals on accessibility bias and cognitive control in race-based misperceptions of weapons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 384–396. · DOI
  24. Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407–424. · DOI
  25. Radvansky, G. A., & Copeland, D. E. (2001). Working memory and situation model updating. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1073–1080. · DOI
  26. Schul, Y., & Mazursky, D. (1990). Conditions facilitating successful discounting in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 442–451. · DOI
  27. Sewell, D. K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2011). Restructuring partitioned knowledge: The role of recoordination in category learning. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 81–122. · DOI
  28. van Oostendorp, H. (1996). Updating situation models derived from newspaper articles. Medienpsychologie, 8, 21–33.
  29. van Oostendorp, H., & Bonebakker, C. (1999). Difficulties in updating mental representations during reading news reports. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 319–339). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  30. Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Schmidt, H. G. (2004). Detrimental influence of contextual change on spacing effects in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 796–800. · DOI
  31. Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 821–833. · DOI

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-02-26
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
570-578
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1
OpenAlex
W2128155832
Cited by
356
References
5
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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

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.