Episodic Memory
Imagined Events Task
Also called: imagination inflation, Life Events Inventory procedure, imagining childhood events
Measure imagination inflation: participants rate everyday childhood events, imagine some of them in detail, then rate all of them again.
10-14 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 11
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures how imagining an event changes confidence that it happened. Participants rate everyday childhood events, imagine some of them in detail, then rate all of them again.
Constructs
- Imagination inflation
- Source monitoring
- Autobiographical memory
- Episodic memory
Research uses
- Research on false memory and source monitoring
- Memory and imagination research
- Research on suggestion in interviews
How the paradigm works
The Imagined Events Task measures imagination inflation: imagining an event in detail makes people more confident that it happened to them. It follows the procedure of Garry, Manning, Loftus and Sherman (1996). Participants first rate how sure they are that each of 24 everyday events happened to them before the age of 10, on the source's 8-point scale from 1 (definitely did not happen) to 8 (definitely did happen). They then imagine 4 of 8 critical events, each in two guided parts, a setting to picture and then what happens, with at least 20 seconds on each part and a rating of how clearly they could picture it. Last, they rate all 24 events again. Which 4 critical events are imagined is drawn for each session, so the other 4 are the comparison and every critical event is imagined in half of the sessions. The events are everyday and harmless and were written for this task in each of the eight app languages; two events that cannot have happened before the age of 10 check that the events were read. The end screen says that imagining an event can make it feel more likely to have happened.
More about the paradigm
The main score is imagination inflation: the mean rise in rating for the imagined critical events minus that for the critical events not imagined, among the events first rated 1 to 4, as the source analyzed them. Comparing two sets chosen the same way removes the rise that any low first rating shows when it is asked again. The shares of those events whose rating rose, the change in the other everyday events, and how clearly the imagined events could be pictured are also reported. In the source, ratings rose for 34% of the imagined events first rated as unlikely and for 25% of the events not imagined. The source spaced the two ratings two weeks apart; here both fall in one session. With 4 events in each group, one person's difference is noisy and is best used to compare groups. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Imagination Inflationscore
- Mean change in rating (1 to 8 scale) for imagined critical events minus that for critical events not imagined, among events first rated 1 to 4.
- Positive means imagined events gained more confidence
- Imagined Events Rated Higher%
- Share of imagined critical events first rated 1 to 4 whose rating rose.
- Informational
- Comparison Events Rated Higher%
- Share of critical events not imagined and first rated 1 to 4 whose rating rose.
- Informational
- Difference in Events Rated Higher%
- Imagined events rated higher minus comparison events rated higher, the source's measure.
- Positive means imagined events gained more often
- Inflation Over All Critical Eventsscore
- The same difference in mean change over every critical event, whatever its first rating.
- Informational
- Change in Other Eventsscore
- Mean change in rating for the 14 other everyday events, which were asked about twice but not imagined.
- Informational
- Clarity of Imaginingscore
- Mean rating of how clearly each part of a guided prompt could be pictured, from 1 to 5.
- Higher means clearer imagining
- Highest Rating of an Impossible Eventscore
- Highest rating given to an event that cannot have happened before the age of 10.
- Above 4 suggests the events were not read
Use and evidence
11 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 21% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 534 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 3 |
| 2024 | 3 |
| 2023 | 0 |
| 2022 | 2 |
| 2021 | 3 |
| 2020 | 2 |
| 2019 | 1 |
| 2018 | 4 |
| 2017 | 4 |
| 2016 | 3 |
| 2015 | 8 |
| 2014 | 3 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 6 |
| 2011 | 6 |
| 2010 | 4 |
| 2009 | 4 |
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2006 | 6 |
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 5 |
| 2003 | 4 |
| 2002 | 3 |
| 2001 | 4 |
| 2000 | 3 |
Use grade E
Fewer than 30 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 1
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Events
- 24 everyday, harmless events written for this task in all 8 languages: 8 critical events in two sets of 4, 14 other everyday events and 2 events that cannot have happened before the age of 10.
- Ratings
- How sure the participant is that each event happened before the age of 10, from 1 (definitely did not happen) to 8 (definitely did happen), once before and once after imagining, each time in an order drawn for the session.
- Imagining
- One set of 4 critical events, drawn for each session, each in two guided parts: a setting, then what happens. Continue opens after 20 seconds (standard; 10 to 60) on each part, and each part is rated for clarity from 1 to 5.
- Comparison
- The other set of 4 critical events, rated twice and never imagined, so every critical event is imagined in half of the sessions.
- Scores
- Imagination inflation: the mean rise in rating for imagined critical events minus that for critical events not imagined, among events first rated 1 to 4 (Garry, Manning, Loftus and Sherman 1996). The shares of events rated higher, the change in the other events and the clarity of imagining are also reported.
- Practice
- 1 event rated on the scale, then a reminder of what the scale ends mean.
- End
- The last screen says that imagining an event can make it feel more likely to have happened, and that the imagined events were chosen at random.
The events and prompts are our own; the source's Life Events Inventory is not used. The source spaced the two ratings two weeks apart; here both fall in one session.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the imagined_events_rating rows of one run, each of 24 events rated twice from 1 to 8. Ratings are untimed judgments with no correct option, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Fewer than 90% of the 48 planned ratings invalidate. Ratings under 200 ms on at least half of them invalidate. One rating on at least 90% of the events, a rating of 5 or more for an event that cannot have happened before the age of 10, and too few critical events first rated 1 to 4 for a comparison are flagged for review. A hidden tab is flagged.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. The same rating throughout can be sincere, so it is flagged, never treated as wrong. Driving on a highway or flying a plane before the age of 10 is impossible, so rating one as probably having happened suggests the events were not read. The comparison of imagined and other events uses the events first rated as unlikely, as in the source, and needs at least one in each group. The 90% completion threshold is a ConductScience choice. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Least time per imagined part (seconds) | 20 | 10 to 60 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Imagined Events Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Garry, Manning, Loftus & Sherman, 1996), with the standard settings (least time per imagined part (seconds): 20). The main score was imagination inflation (mean change in rating (1 to 8 scale) for imagined critical events minus that for critical events not imagined, among events first rated 1 to 4).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Garry, M., Manning, C. G., Loftus, E. F., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2), 208-214. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212420Ratings of childhood events before and after imagining some of them, compared with events not imagined.
- Pezdek, K., & Eddy, R. M. (2001). Imagination inflation: A statistical artifact of regression toward the mean. Memory & Cognition, 29(5), 707-718. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200473Low first ratings rise on a second rating whether or not an event was imagined; the comparison events take that rise out of the score.
Source papers
- Garry M, Manning CG, Loftus EF, Sherman SJ (1996). Imagination inflation: Imagining a childhood event inflates confidence that it occurred. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(2):208-214.Paradigm source
- Pezdek K, Eddy RM (2001). Imagination inflation: A statistical artifact of regression toward the mean. Memory & Cognition, 29(5):707-718.Paradigm source
Questions
How long does the Imagined Events Task take?
About 10 to 14 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Imagination Inflation, Imagined Events Rated Higher, Comparison Events Rated Higher, Difference in Events Rated Higher, Inflation Over All Critical Events, Change in Other Events, Clarity of Imagining and Highest Rating of an Impossible Event. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Imagined Events Task used in research?
11 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 21% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 534 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade E). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Imagined Events Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Least time per imagined part (seconds) (10 to 60). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.