False Memory In Psychology

In other words, a false memory could either be an entirely imaginary fabrication or a distorted recollection of an actual event. Moreover, false memories are distinct from simple errors in recollection.

Someone with a false memory still feels sure it is true. A false memory is not about forgetting something real. It is about remembering something that never took place.

Instances of this phenomenon range from the mundane to the serious. A person might mistakenly remember eating breakfast when they did not. Or they might falsely recall a serious event, such as being assaulted by their boss.

Examples of False Memory

• A Childhood Trip: Recalling a trip to Disneyland that never actually happened.
• Lost in a Mall: Remembering being lost in a mall as a child, even though it did not occur.
• Crime Scene Details: Misremembering details of a crime scene after leading questions or post-event information.
• Locking the Door: Believing you locked the door before leaving home when you did not.
• A Word Never Said: Remembering a word from a list that was never presented, because it resembled the other words on it.
• Wrong Source: Confusing where information came from, such as believing a dream actually happened.
• Wrong News Channel: Remembering a news event as reported on one channel when it actually aired on another.

Lost in the Mall: Implanting a Whole Childhood Memory

Aim: To test whether a completely false childhood memory could be implanted in an adult through suggestion alone.

Method: Twenty-four participants each received a booklet of four short childhood stories, supposedly supplied by a close relative. Three stories were true, but the fourth was false.

The false story described the participant getting lost in a shopping mall around age five, becoming frightened, and being rescued by an elderly stranger. A relative had confirmed beforehand that this had never happened.

Participants wrote what they remembered about each story. They were then interviewed twice more over the following weeks and asked to recall as much detail as possible.

Results: About 25% of participants, 6 of the 24, came to “remember” the fake mall event, at least in part. Some added sensory and emotional detail that the booklet never supplied.

Conclusion: A detailed, emotionally significant childhood event can be implanted in a substantial minority of ordinary adults. Feeling like a memory does not guarantee that an event really happened (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995).

The False Photograph Study

Aim: To test whether a doctored photograph, rather than a story alone, could implant a false childhood memory.

Method: Twenty participants viewed three real childhood photos supplied by relatives, plus one fake image. The fake photo digitally placed the participant’s real childhood face into a hot-air-balloon basket.

The doctored image depicted a balloon ride that never happened. Across three interviews over about two weeks, participants tried to recall each event, using guided imagery if they got stuck.

Results: By the third interview, about 50% of participants, 10 of the 20, reported at least a partial memory of the fictional balloon ride.

Many added details the photo never showed.

Conclusion: A false image is a powerful route to a false memory, arguably more powerful than a story alone. It gives the imagination a concrete anchor to build on (Wade et al., 2002).

Escalating to Impossible Memories

Later studies pushed the technique further, with unsettling results. Roughly a third of participants came to believe they had nearly drowned and been rescued by a lifeguard as a child. About half believed they had once been attacked by a vicious animal.

Merely imagining a childhood event, such as breaking a window with your hand, can raise a person’s confidence that it really happened. Psychologists call this imagination inflation.

One study even planted memories of an impossible event: shaking hands with Bugs Bunny at a Disney resort (see Research, below, for how).

A false childhood memory of getting sick after eating hard-boiled eggs, dill pickles, or strawberry ice cream made participants want that food less (Bernstein et al., 2005). The effect lasted for months (Geraerts et al., 2008).

The reverse also works: a false memory of loving asparagus as a child made people like it more and want it more (Laney et al., 2008).

Mandela Effect

The Mandela Effect is a phenomenon where a large group of people remembers an event or detail one way, but it actually occurred differently.

The name comes from the widespread but mistaken belief that Nelson Mandela died in prison in the 1980s. In fact, he was released in 1990 and lived until 2013.

This collective misremembering is an example of false memory, highlighting how memory isn’t perfect and can be influenced by societal factors, misinformation, or misconceptions.

Causes of False Memories

False memories can stem from a variety of sources. Following are some of them.

Research

Freud, Janet, and the Origins of False-Memory Research

The initial research on false memory was pioneered by Sigmund Freud and Pierre Janet (Gleaves, Smith, Butler & Spiegel, 2004). Even though Freud’s assertions on psychoanalysis have been discredited by many, his emphasis on memory continues to elicit attention (Knafo, 2009). But neither settled the debate.

Pierre Janet’s work on memory retrieval through hypnosis and dissociation also continues to shape the field of false memory. The most significant contributions came from Elizabeth F. Loftus.

It was a radical claim. Their shared insight was that memory is not a faithful recording. It can be edited, supplemented, or fabricated by suggestion, imagination, and misleading information. That single idea launched decades of research, and Loftus, more than anyone else, took it furthest of all.

Loftus and Palmer (1974): Reconstructing a Car Crash

In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus and John C. Palmer conducted two experiments in which the participants viewed videos of automobile accidents and answered follow-up questions (Loftus & Palmer, 1974).

Participants who heard the word “smashed” gave higher speed estimates than those who heard “bumped,” “contacted,” “collided,” or “hit.” The verb alone shifted memory.

A week later, participants who had heard “smashed” were also more likely to falsely report seeing broken glass, even though the video showed none. The wording of a question, asked after the fact, could distort memory of the event itself.

Misinformation like this gets woven into the memory of the original event. It happens seamlessly. A witness cannot tell which parts they actually saw and which came from someone else’s words.

Autobiographical Advertising and Invented Memories

A study by Kathryn Braun, Rhiannon Ellis, and Elizabeth Loftus tested a nostalgic advertising effect (Braun, Ellis & Loftus, 2002).

Could an advert make people believe they had personally lived out the experience it showed? Apparently, yes.

Participants viewed adverts suggesting they had once shaken hands with Bugs Bunny at a Disney resort. That meeting is impossible: Bugs Bunny is a Warner Bros. character who could never appear at a Disney park. Yet many believed it anyway.

The adverts still increased participants’ confidence that the handshake had really happened. Autobiographical advertising, the study concluded, can create distorted or entirely false memories in the people who view it.

Any advert inviting someone to picture a past experience can work the same way, real character or not.

Comparing False-Memory Techniques

A related study looked at how different false-memory techniques relate to one another (Bernstein, Scoboria, Desjarlais & Soucie, 2018). Not all false memories are alike.

It compared three things: believing a suggested false event really happened, and accepting misinformation encountered after an event. It also checked false recognition of a critical lure in the DRM (Deese-Roediger-McDermott) word-list procedure.

The three were only weakly correlated with each other. That suggests each technique taps a different underlying mechanism.

A technique that works well in one paradigm, such as word association, says little about how susceptible the same person is to a suggested childhood event. It also hints that the single label “false memory” may lump together processes that are not really the same thing.

Real-World Implications

People often assume that memories of stressful or violent events are recorded accurately enough for reliable, effective retrieval (Lacy & Stark, 2013).

Evidence from neuroscience and psychology shows that memory is a reconstructive process, vulnerable to distortion. Trusting memory more than it deserves can have serious consequences in courtroom settings.

The Ramona Case: A Costly Implanted Memory

The case Ramona v. Isabella, for instance, dealt with a supposedly false memory implanted by two therapists in their patient, Holly Ramona (La Ganga, 1994).

Her father, Gary Ramona, sued the two psychiatrists. He accused them of implanting memories of incestuous abuse in his daughter using sodium amytal, a hypnotic drug.

In 1994, the jury sided with the father. He was awarded $500,000 in damages for the false allegation that he had sexually abused his daughter.

The case helped establish that a third party harmed by suggestive therapy could seek legal redress of their own.

That precedent still stands.

It also made clinicians far more aware of the medico-legal risks of memory-recovery work.

It remains one of the clearest examples of a false memory causing serious real-world harm.

The Lyn Balfour Case: A False Memory of Routine

In another incident, Lyn Balfour was charged with second-degree murder after leaving her nine-month-old son, Bryce, to die in a hot car (Balfour, 2012). She also faced child abuse and neglect charges.

Following a thorough investigation, however, the jury determined that Balfour was not guilty of murder.

Investigators instead concluded she had a false memory of dropping her son off at the babysitter’s that morning. That drop-off was part of her everyday routine.

Stress and sleep loss are exactly the conditions the sleep-deprivation research above would predict make a false memory more likely, not less. Balfour’s case shows that a false memory does not need a suggestive therapist or a leading question.

An exhausted brain can invent one on its own, under nothing more than the pressure of a stressful morning.

Learning Check

Which of the following is most likely to be a false memory?

The Recovered-Memory Debate and False Memory Syndrome

Some adults recall childhood sexual abuse for the first time during therapy, years after it supposedly happened. Psychologists call these recovered memories. Critics call the same experience a false memory, implanted by suggestive therapy rather than genuinely retrieved.

The dispute became public in the early 1990s. Adult children sued parents for abuse first “remembered” in therapy.

Accused parents fought back. So did retractors, people who later withdrew their abuse claims and sued the therapists who had treated them.

Two advocacy groups formed within a year of each other. The False Memory Syndrome Foundation launched in the US in 1992, and the British False Memory Society followed in 1993.

Repression: The Idea Behind Recovered Memory

Recovered-memory claims rest on repression: the idea that the mind can bury a traumatic memory completely and later restore it intact. Sigmund Freud’s theory of repression is the historical root of this idea.

Critics say this would have to be an unusually powerful form of repression, with no counterpart in ordinary memory.

It would need to block all awareness of repeated abuse, however many events, over however many years, then release it decades later.

Freud’s own writing complicates the picture rather than settling it. In Screen Memories (1899), he argued that early memories are built like dreams, so a trivial memory can screen a more troubling one.

What surfaces, on this view, is not the past as it actually was, but as it looked when the memory was later recalled.

Freud later abandoned the idea that his patients had suffered real childhood abuse, in favour of the view that they had merely fantasised it.

That leaves his theory in an awkward spot. A “recovered” memory could, on his own account, be a fantasy, yet his belief that psychoanalysis can uncover repressed experience is the very tool recovered-memory therapists still rely on.

Recovered-Memory Therapy and False Memory Syndrome

Recovered-memory therapy uses techniques such as hypnosis, guided imagery, dream interpretation, and sedative-hypnotic drugs. The aim is to help clients retrieve memories they may have repressed.

The false-memory critique is that these are the exact techniques shown, in the lab, to create memories rather than recover them.

Imagination, suggestion, and confusion about where a memory came from can combine to produce a vivid, sincerely believed, but false recollection. That combination is what defines false memory syndrome.

Reviews of the clinical and laboratory evidence agree that suggestive therapy carries a real risk of creating illusory memories. That does not mean every recovered memory is false; some genuinely reflect real abuse (Gleaves, Smith, Butler & Spiegel, 2004).

The syndrome names a specific claim: that a person’s identity and relationships can come to be organised around a memory that is sincerely and strongly held but factually mistaken. The same recollection looks like a recovered truth from the accuser’s side and an implanted falsehood from the accused’s.

Comparing Recovered-Memory and Documented-Abuse Cases

A 1998 study compared recovered-memory claims against cases of documented child sexual abuse. The two groups looked strikingly different (Brandon, Boakes, Glaser & Green, 1998).

Feature	Recovered-memory cases	Documented-abuse cases
Sex of accuser	About 90% women	About 50:50
Accusations against stepfathers	About 3%	Much more common
Age of victim recalled	Before age 4, or even infancy	Usually older children or teens

The recalled age is the biggest red flag. Memories from before roughly age four run into childhood amnesia, the well-documented gap in almost everyone’s ability to recall their earliest years. A memory that claims to originate there is unlikely to be literal.

None of this proves any individual recovered-memory claim is false. But it does show the two groups are not drawn from the same pattern of abuse.

If recovered memories reflected real abuse the same way documented cases do, the profile of victim and accused should look similar. Here, it does not, on every measure recorded.

A Middle Ground: Recovery Without Repression

A 2009 review offered a way past the standoff. Some people do genuinely recall abuse years later, the researchers argued, but not because the memory was repressed (McNally & Geraerts, 2009).

Instead, the person had simply not thought about the event since it happened, or had forgotten it the ordinary way memories fade.

Often the abuse was not experienced as traumatic at the time. That is part of why it can take so long to surface, even though revisiting it as an adult can be distressing.

This account needs neither repression nor total forgetting. It also dissolves the false choice between “every recovered memory is a buried truth” and “every recovered memory is a fabrication.”

The account matters beyond this one debate because it does not require settling whether repression is real. If repression turns out not to exist, the standard recovered-memory position loses its theoretical foundation entirely, while this middle position still leaves room for a genuine delayed memory.

Many memory researchers treat it as the more economical explanation.

It fits what is already known about ordinary forgetting and later re-encountering old material, without needing a specialised suppression mechanism found nowhere else in memory.

Critical Evaluation of False Memory Research

False-memory research rests on some of the most reliable findings in cognitive psychology, but its real-world application stays genuinely contested. Here is where the evidence stands strong, and where it stays open:

• Strong Evidence Base: Implantation and misinformation studies are among psychology’s most replicable findings.
• Leap to Real Abuse Unproven: That false memories can be created does not prove any specific recovered memory is false.
• Measurement Is Contested: Published false-memory rates swing depending on how researchers define and score a “false memory.”
• Repression Remains a Disputed Construct: The whole recovered-memory position depends on repression, a concept many memory researchers reject.
• Confidence Is Not Proof: People can be confident, detailed, and emotional about a memory that never happened.
• High Human Stakes on Both Sides: Over-crediting a false memory can imprison the innocent; over-applying the critique can silence real victims.

A Strong, Replicable Evidence Base

The implantation studies, the misinformation effect, and the DRM illusion are among the most reliably replicated findings in cognitive psychology. That gives the core claim, that false memories can be created, unusually solid footing for a socially sensitive topic. Few claims this sensitive rest on such solid ground.

The strength of the evidence base is also that it does not rest on one method.

Elizabeth Loftus’s implantation studies, doctored-photograph experiments, and word-list illusions such as the DRM effect all reach the same conclusion using different techniques and different research teams. The pattern repeats.

That convergence across independent methods is exactly what makes a finding trustworthy in psychology. A result produced only one way, by one paradigm, is far easier to dismiss as an artefact of that particular method; this one is not.

The Leap From Lab to Real Abuse

Being lost in a mall or seeing a doctored photograph is mildly upsetting, plausible, and over in a single incident.

Real abuse is none of those things.

So a technique proven reliable on that milder kind of memory does not automatically transfer to a repeated childhood trauma. That much is obvious.

What the lab work does not establish is that any particular recovered memory of abuse is false. Implanted events in these studies are mild and plausible, not repeated trauma.

So the leap from “false memories can be created” to “this specific memory is false” is not automatic. Researchers are careful not to make it.

Loftus herself has always been careful about the distinction: her studies show false memories can be created, not that any specific recovered memory of abuse is false (Loftus, 1997). That caution matters.

The field stays wary for good reason: over-extending the laboratory findings in court or therapy risks discrediting genuine survivors along with any memories that really were implanted. Neither side of the memory-wars debate can settle an individual case by pointing at the lab alone.

Why Measurement Is Contested

Two major reviews reached different numbers for how often implantation works. Scoboria and colleagues put the rate near 30%; Brewin and Andrews put full false memories closer to 15%.

The numbers disagree.

The gap comes down to scoring, not disagreement about the phenomenon itself. A “false memory” can be coded loosely, counting any hint of acceptance, or strictly, requiring vivid sensory and emotional detail.

Definitions decide everything.

Bernstein and colleagues (2018) go further, arguing that “false memory” is partly a linguistic convenience: a single label covering several distinct processes that are only weakly related to each other. That matters beyond academic bookkeeping.

A headline percentage means little without knowing which definition produced it, and expert witnesses citing these figures in court need to say which one they mean.

A Disputed Foundation: Repression

McNally and Geraerts (2009) offer the strongest challenge. Many delayed memories of abuse need neither repression nor total forgetting to explain them.

Ordinary not-thinking-about-it, or ordinary forgetting, is enough on its own.

That matters because repression is not just one detail of the recovered-memory account. It is the entire theoretical engine, covered in full in Repression: The Idea Behind Recovered Memory, above.

The stakes are high.

If “robust” repression turns out not to exist at all, the theoretical basis for recovering decades-buried trauma collapses entirely.

The recovery-without-repression account survives that collapse because it never needed repression to begin with. That is why many memory researchers treat it as the more economical explanation.

This is not a footnote. It is the single construct the whole recovered-memory position stands or falls on.

Confidence Without Corroboration

Lacy and Stark (2013) reviewed the neuroscience directly. True and false memories activate overlapping brain systems, so no scan can yet certify that a memory is genuine.

That finding matters. The usual signs people rely on, confidence, vivid detail, emotion, and consistency, are exactly the qualities a false memory can carry just as convincingly as a true one.

Merely believing an event was traumatic can even produce real trauma-like stress responses in the body years later. That felt intensity is never proof a memory is accurate.

Jurors and clinicians alike are prone to over-trust a witness who simply sounds sure.

Independent corroboration, not the vividness of the memory, is the only test that can currently settle the question either way.

Weighing the Stakes on Both Sides

Gary Ramona won $500,000 after arguing that his daughter’s therapists had implanted a false memory of incestuous abuse, using a sodium-amytal interview (see Real-World Implications, above).

That is the over-crediting risk realised: an innocent parent can be financially and socially destroyed by a memory later judged unreliable.

The opposite risk is just as real.

Dismissing a genuine survivor’s disclosure, simply because a lab once implanted a similar-sounding memory in someone else, can silence someone telling the truth.

Both harms are real.

Lyn Balfour’s case shows a milder version of the same coin.

A false memory of a routine action, formed under stress and sleep loss, nearly cost her a murder conviction. The responsible position is symmetrical: take disclosures seriously, avoid suggestive techniques, and seek independent corroboration before treating any single memory as proof either way.

Contemporary Research

Scoboria and colleagues (2017) ran a mega-analysis of eight implantation studies, pooling the original case-level data from 423 participants.

Their goal was to settle a puzzle: published false-memory rates varied wildly because studies scored “false memory” differently. Using one seven-part scoring system across all eight studies, they found 30.4% of cases counted as a full false memory.

A further 23% showed partial acceptance of the suggested event.

Under the most conducive conditions, a suggestion relevant to the person plus an imagination exercise, the rate rose to 46.1%.

Brewin and Andrews (2017) reviewed the imagination-inflation, false-feedback, and implantation literature separately and reached a more cautious figure. Some recollective experience was induced in about 47% of participants, but only around 15% qualified as a full false memory.

The two estimates disagree on the exact number. But they agree on the substance: a meaningful minority of adults can be led to a false autobiographical memory. The exact figure depends heavily on how “memory” is scored.

The repression debate is not settling down, either. Otgaar and colleagues (2019) found belief in repressed memories remains widespread among clinicians, at a “nontrivial” rate of around 58%.

The label has simply changed.

That belief has increased since the 1990s, often now relabelled dissociative amnesia, a label for memory loss blamed on psychological trauma rather than injury. A US survey of 2,326 adults by Patihis and Pendergrast (2019) found 5% reported recovering abuse memories in therapy they previously had no memory of.

Therapy itself seems to be the trigger.

Clients whose therapist had raised the possibility of repressed abuse were about 20 times more likely to report such a memory. Together, these newer studies suggest the suggestive practices behind the 1990s controversy have not gone away.

References

Balfour, Lyn (20 Jan. 2012) “Experience: My Baby Died in a Hot Car.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/20/my-baby-died-in-hot-car.

Bernstein, D. M., Laney, C., Morris, E. K., & Loftus, E. F. (2005). False beliefs about fattening foods can have healthy consequences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(39), 13724–13731. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0504869102

Bernstein, D. M., Scoboria, A., Desjarlais, L., & Soucie, K. (2018). “False memory” is a linguistic convenience. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000148

Brandon, S., Boakes, J., Glaser, D., & Green, R. (1998). Recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse: Implications for clinical practice. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172(4), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.172.4.296

Braun, K. A., Ellis, R., & Loftus, E. F. (2002). Make my memory: How advertising can change our memories of the past. Psychology & Marketing, 19(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1000

Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). Creating memories for false autobiographical events in childhood: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3220

Diekelmann, S., Landolt, H. P., Lahl, O., Born, J., & Wagner, U. (2008). Sleep loss produces false memories. PloS one, 3(10), e3512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003512

Geraerts, E., Bernstein, D. M., Merckelbach, H., Linders, C., Raymaekers, L., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Lasting false beliefs and their behavioral consequences. Psychological Science, 19(8), 749–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02151.x

Gleaves, D. H., Smith, S. M., Butler, L. D., & Spiegel, D. (2004). False and recovered memories in the laboratory and clinic: A review of experimental and clinical evidence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(1), 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph055

Knafo, D. (2009). Freud’s memory erased. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 26(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015557

La Ganga, Maria L. (1994-05-14). “Father Wins Suit in “False Memory” Case”. Los Angeles Times.

Lacy, J. W., & Stark, C. E. L. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: Implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(9), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3563

Laney, C., Morris, E. K., Bernstein, D. M., Wakefield, B. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Asparagus, a love story: Healthier eating could be just a false memory away. Experimental Psychology, 55(5), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.55.5.291

Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive psychology, 7(4), 560-572. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 13(5), 585-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3

Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720–725. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19951201-07

McHugh, P. R (2008). Try to remember: Psychiatry’s clash over meaning, memory and mind. Dana Press.

McNally, R. J., & Geraerts, E. (2009). A new solution to the recovered memory debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01112.x

Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1072–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619862306

Patihis, L., & Pendergrast, M. H. (2019). Reports of recovered memories of abuse in therapy in a large age-representative U.S. national sample: Therapy type and decade comparisons. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618773315

Robinson, Dana (20 Mar. 2020). “Everything You Want to Know About OCD.” Healthline, Healthline Media, www.healthline.com/health/ocd/social-signs.

Robinson-Riegler, B., & Robinson-Riegler, G. (2016). Cognitive psychology: Applying the science of the mind. Pearson.

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(4), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.4.803

Saunders, J., & MacLeod, M. D. (2002). New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 127. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.127

Schacter, D. L. (2002). The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Houghton: Mifflin Harcourt

Scoboria, A., Wade, K. A., Lindsay, D. S., Azad, T., Strange, D., Ost, J., & Hyman, I. E. (2017). A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory, 25(2), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1260747

Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 597–603. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196318

Weiten, W. (2010). Psychology: Themes and variations. Cengage Learning.