Invited commentary on Brewin and Andrews (2016)

Brewin and Andrews (2016) make many cogent observations on the state of knowledge about the development of false autobiographical beliefs and false recollections. Owing to inconsistent use of terminology and imprecise definitions, the framework they propose does not clearly map onto the studies that are summarized, making the resulting estimates of the magnitude of effects across studies unconvincing. A singular focus on the development of ‘full memories’ is not explained, and the key role of autobiographical belief in influencing behavior is underemphasized. Furthermore, the legal applications discussed are not well defined and are limited in scope. Fostering false belief or false imagery for events such as childhood abuse is unacceptable, whether or not suggested events come to be experienced as vivid believed recollections. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd