False Memory Is in the Details: Photographic Details Differentially Predict Memory Formation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Although false memory formation is a well‐documented phenomenon, the strength and rates of false memory formation vary across studies. Research indicates that the types of details provided in suggestions differentially influence memory formation, with some details enhancing and others impeding memories. This study explored the facilitation of false memories using doctored photographs, by manipulating the presence of salient familiar and unfamiliar details within photographs. Over three interviews, 82 participants viewed four photographs allegedly provided by parents. One was a doctored photograph depicting a hot‐air balloon ride, in which the presence of salient self‐relevant and unfamiliar details was varied. Participants rated the strength of their memory and associated memory characteristics for the events. Including self‐relevant details without unfamiliar details resulted in the highest memory ratings and greater increases in memory characteristic ratings. Memories were weakest when both details were provided. The theoretical implications of the findings are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it