When things that were never experienced are easier to "remember" than things that were

Can things that were never experienced be more readily accepted on recognition tests than things that were experienced? A current explanation of false memory predicts that this can happen when things that were never experienced provide superior access to the gist of events. This prediction, was tested in three experiments in which the task was to accept all test items that were consistent with the substance of previously studied material, regardless of whether they had been studied. Acceptance rates were consistently higher for some never-studied items (those that provided superior access to gist memories) than for studied items. This effect varied predictably as a function of manipulations of the strength of gist memories and their accessibility. These results have implications for the use of exploratory memory-interrogation procedures in psychotherapy and the law.