Table 1.
Summary of the eligible studies.
| Study | Main misremembering category | Participants (age) | Conditions or groups | Scenarios | Attribute alignability | Delay | Memory test |
| [other categories potentially relevant] | |||||||
| Benney and Henkel, 2006 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting, False memory] | 172 adults (18–52) | Best interest vs. free choice vs. assigned option | • Restaurants | Mainly unalignable, but gum options partly alignable | 30 min | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Movie theaters | |||||||
| • Department stores | |||||||
| • Gum | |||||||
| Chen and Zhang, 2003 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting] | Number and age of participants not known | High vs. low conflict scenarios Delay levels | Not known | Not known | “Short” and “long” (details not known) | Free recall and source recognition (details not known) |
| • Experiment 1 | |||||||
| • Experiment 2 | |||||||
| DeKay et al., 2014 | Fact distortion | • Experiment 1: 169 adults (18–68) | Choice vs. no choice | • Apartments | All alignable | No delay | Recognition (forced-choice recognition) |
| • Experiment 1 | • Experiment 2: 470 adults (18–71) | ||||||
| • Experiment 2 | • Experiment 4: 255 adults (18–74) | ||||||
| • Experiment 4 | |||||||
| Depping and Freund, 2013 | Selective forgetting [Misattribution] | • Experiment 1: 66 young (19–30), 73 older (60–88) | Choice vs. readability (no choice) Age | • Travel packages | Mainly not alignable | 7 min | Free recall |
| • Experiment 1 | • Experiment 2: 62 young (18–31), 60 older (64–86) | • Hospitals (for surgery) | |||||
| • Experiment 2 | |||||||
| Henkel and Mather, 2007 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting, False memory] | 80 young adults (18–24) | • Roommates | Mainly not alignable | 2 days | Recognition (source recognition) | |
| • Experiment 1 | • Internships | ||||||
| • Apartments | |||||||
| • Cars | |||||||
| • Dating partners | |||||||
| Hess and Kotter-Grühn, 2011 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting] | 54 young (20–44), 52 middle-age (45–64), 54 older (65–85) | Impression (no choice) vs. interaction (and choice) Age | • Persons with whom to spend a day (social partner) | Not known, but the examples provided in the paper suggest mainly unalignable | Short, length not specified | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Experiment 1 | |||||||
| Hess et al., 2012 | Misattribution | 54 young (20–44), 55 middle age (45–64), 54 older (65–85) | Active deliberation vs. no deliberation Alignable vs. unalignable attribute focus Age | • Grocery store | Half alignable | Relatively short, length not specified | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Apartment to rent | |||||||
| Mather and Johnson, 2000 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting, False memory] | 54 young (18–26), 108 older (64–83) | Affective review vs. factual review vs. no review Delay levels Age | • Houses | Mainly not alignable | 30 min, 2 days | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Job candidates | |||||||
| • Flights | |||||||
| • Blind dates | |||||||
| Mather et al., 2000 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting, False memory] | • Experiment 1: 142 students | Experiment 3b: Choice vs. rejection | • Job candidates | Mainly not alignable | Experiment 1: 5 min Experiments 2 and 3a: 45 min Experiment 3b: 5 min | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Experiment 1 | • Experiment 2: 75 under-graduates | • Blind dates | |||||
| • Experiment 2 | • Experiment 3a: 77 undergraduates | • Roommate | |||||
| • Experiment 3a | • Experiment 3b: 379 students | ||||||
| • Experiment 3b | |||||||
| Mather et al., 2003 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting, False memory] | 94 undergraduates (age not known) | Choice vs. assignment | • Houses | Mainly not alignable | 45 min | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Experiment 2 | • Roommates | ||||||
| • Cars | |||||||
| Queen and Hess, 2010 | Misattribution [Selective forgetting] | 62 young adults (17–28), 75 older adults (60–86) | Age Conscious vs. unconscious thought Deliberative vs. Intuitive information | • Apartments | All attributes alignable | Relatively short, not specified | Recognition (source recognition) |
| • Banks | |||||||
| Svenson et al., 2009 | Fact distortion | • Experiment 1: 64 students (21–42) | Patients needing surgery | All attributes alignable | Experiments 1 and 2: Not known Experiment 3: 1 h | Cued recall | |
| • Experiment 1 | • Experiment 2: 35 students familiar with scenario type (23–48), | ||||||
| • Experiment 2 | • Experiment 3: 77 students (19–39) | ||||||
| • Experiment 3 | |||||||
aParticipants included in the analyses.
bThe age of the participants not specified for any of the experiments in this paper.