Misrepresentations and flawed logic about the prevalence of false memories

Robert A. Nash*, Kimberley A. Wade, Maryanne Garry, Elizabeth F. Loftus, James Ost

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter, comment/opinion or interviewpeer-review


Brewin and Andrews (2016) propose that just 15% of people, or even fewer, are susceptible to false childhood memories. If this figure were true, then false memories would still be a serious problem. But the figure is higher than 15%. False memories occur even after a few short and low-pressure interviews, and with each successive interview they become richer, more compelling, and more likely to occur. It is therefore dangerously misleading to claim that the scientific data provide an “upper bound” on susceptibility to memory errors. We also raise concerns about the peer review process.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)31–33
Number of pages3
JournalApplied Cognitive Psychology
Issue number1
Early online date14 Oct 2016
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2017

Bibliographical note

© 2016 The Authors Applied Cognitive Psychology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Dive into the research topics of 'Misrepresentations and flawed logic about the prevalence of false memories'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this