D. Stephen Lindsay: ‘Commentary for special issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology in honor of Alan Scoboria.’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34,1345‐1349.

On page 1348 it was stated: “Brewin and Andrews (2017) reviewed the literature on false memories and argued that the rate of false memories in the real world is no higher than 15% of individuals exposed to suggestive influences. But any “upper limit” on the percentage of adults who can be led to experience false memories will depend on interactions among numerous variables.” In fact, the figure of 15% mentioned by Brewin and Andrews referred to the rate of false memories among experimental participants, and they did not claim anywhere in their article that it applied to the real world.

The correct statement should be:

Brewin and Andrews (2017) reviewed the literature on false memories and argued that the rate of full false autobiographical memories in that literature is no higher than 15% of individuals exposed to suggestive influences. In the real world, the percentage of adults who can be led to experience false memories will depend on interactions among numerous variables.

This has been corrected within the article. The author apologies for this error.

D.斯蒂芬·林赛（Stephen Lindsay）：“为纪念艾伦·斯科伯里亚（Alan Scoboria）而特别发表的应用认知心理学专刊” 应用认知心理学，34,1345-1349。

在第1348页上说：“ Brewin和Andrews（2017）回顾了关于虚假记忆的文献，并指出现实世界中虚假记忆的发生率不高于受到暗示影响的个体的15％。但是，任何可能导致错误记忆的成年人百分比的“上限”都取决于众多变量之间的相互作用。” 实际上，布鲁金（Brewin）和安德鲁斯（Andrews）提到的15％的数字是指实验参与者的错误记忆率，他们在文章中没有声称它适用于现实世界。

正确的声明应为：

布鲁因和安德鲁斯（Brewin and Andrews，2017）回顾了关于错误记忆的文献，并认为该文献中完全错误的自传体记忆的比率不高于受到暗示影响的个体的15％。在现实世界中，会导致错误记忆的成年人比例将取决于众多变量之间的相互作用。

这已在文章中得到纠正。作者对此错误表示歉意。