Bibliographie

Bartlett, F. C. (1995). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for text. Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 177–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(79)90009-4

Brewer, W. F., & Treyens, J. C. (1981). Role of schemata in memory for places. Cognitive Psychology, 13(2), 207–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(81)90008-6

Conway, M. A., Anderson, S. J., Larsen, S. F., Donnelly, C. M., McDaniel, M. A., McClelland, A. G. R., Rawles, R. E., & Logie, R. H. (1994). The formation of flashbulb memories. Memory & Cognition, 22(3), 326–343. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200860

Cornelius Dupree. (2021, 22 avril). Dans Wikipédia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Dupree

Goldstein, B. E., & van Hooff, J. C. (2018). Cognitive psychology (1st EMEA Edition). Cengage Learning EMEA.

Hamann, S. B., Ely, T. D., Grafton, S. T., & Kilts, C. D. (1999). Amygdala activity related to enhanced memory for pleasant and aversive stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 2(3), 5.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93. https://doi.org/10.2307/352430

Hyman, I. E., Husband, T. H., & Billings, F. J. (1995). False memories of childhood experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090302

Johnson, M. K., Bransford, J. D., & Solomon, S. K. (1973). Memory for tacit implications of sentences. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98(1), 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034290

Loftus, E. (2003). Our changeable memories: Legal and practical implications. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(3), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1054

Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044839

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

Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and Accuracy in Recall (1st ed., pp. 9–31). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664069.003

Quinlivan, D. S., Wells, G. L., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2010). Is Manipulative Intent Necessary to Mitigate the Eyewitness Post-Identification Feedback Effect? Law Hum Behav, 12.

Rathbone, C. J., Moulin, C. J. A., & Conway, M. A. (2008). Self-centered memories: The reminiscence bump and the self. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1403–1414. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.8.1403

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

Sanitioso, R., Kunda, Z., & Fong, G. T. (1990). Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.2.229

Schrauf, R. W., & Rubin, D. C. (1998). Bilingual Autobiographical Memory in Older Adult Immigrants: A Test of Cognitive Explanations of the Reminiscence Bump and the Linguistic Encoding of Memories. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2585

Sprecher, S. (1999). “I Love You More Today Than Yesterday”: Romantic Partners’ Perceptions of Changes in Love and Related Affect Over Time. 8.

Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, Not Consistency, Characterizes Flashbulb Memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.02453

Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). ’ ’Good, "fou Identified the Suspect’’: Feedback to Eyewitnesses Distorts Their Reports of the Witnessing Experience. 17.

Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9130-3