↓ Skip to main content

True and false recovered memories : toward a reconciliation of the debate

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 3: True and False Recovered Memories
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
True and False Recovered Memories
Chapter number 3
Book title
True and False Recovered Memories
Published in
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-1195-6_3
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-1194-9, 978-1-4614-1195-6
Authors

Anderson, Michael C, Huddleston, Ean, Anderson, Michael C., Michael C. Anderson, Ean Huddleston

Abstract

Historically, research on forgetting has been dominated by the assumption that forgetting is passive, reflecting decay, interference, and changes in context. This emphasis arises from the pervasive assumption that forgetting is a negative outcome. Here, we present a functional view of forgetting in which the fate of experience in memory is determined as much by motivational forces that dictate the focus of attention as it is by passive factors. A central tool of motivated forgetting is retrieval suppression, a process whereby people shut down episodic retrieval to control awareness. We review behavioral, neurobiological, and clinical research and show that retrieval suppression leads us to forget suppressed experiences. We discuss key questions necessary to address to develop this model, relationships to other forgetting phenomena, and the implications of this research for understanding recovered memories. This work provides a foundation for understanding how motivational forces influence what we remember of life experience.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 182 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 17%
Student > Master 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 37 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 87 47%
Neuroscience 17 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 5%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 44 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,810,911
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
#9
of 49 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,088
of 140,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 49 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one scored the same or higher as 40 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 140,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them