Commentary on Brewin and Andrews

Summary Brewin and Andrews (2016) reviewed the literature on false memories of autobiographical events, discussed those findings in the context of theoretical accounts of autobiographical memory, and concluded that no more than 15% of people exposed to suggestive influences come to develop robust fa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied cognitive psychology 2017-01, Vol.31 (1), p.37-39
Main Authors: Lindsay, D. Stephen, Hyman, Ira E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Autobiographical memory
Child abuse & neglect
Childhood memories
Children
Cognitive psychology
Memories
Memory
Psychology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Brewin and Andrews (2016) reviewed the literature on false memories of autobiographical events, discussed those findings in the context of theoretical accounts of autobiographical memory, and concluded that no more than 15% of people exposed to suggestive influences come to develop robust false memories of significant childhood events. We note several points on which we agree with Brewin and Andrews. But we also take issue with their review and their conclusions. The likelihood of false memories depends on interactions among numerous variables, and psychology is far short of the degree of theoretical precision required to specify any upper limit. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
ISSN:0888-4080
1099-0720
DOI:10.1002/acp.3267