Purpose Children sometimes receive misinformation after being formally interviewed about their experiences in cases of suspected abuse. Following decades of research, many guidelines have been produced for interviewers so they can obtain reliable statements in children, like, for example, the NICHD protocol. One might expect that completing an early interview following research‐based guidelines might guard against the incorporation of misinformation encountered later. The goal of the current experiments was to examine whether following research‐based guidelines such as the NICHD protocol might protect child witnesses against follow‐up ‘misinformation’ or make them more vulnerable to misinformation. This increased vulnerability to misinformation has been referred to as retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility. Methods In two experiments, children viewed a video and half of them were interviewed using the NICHD protocol, while the other half were not interviewed. The children received misinformation and a final memory test either immediately after being interviewed (Experiment 1) or 1 week later (Experiment 2). Results Retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility was observed when misinformation was presented immediately but not when it was provided after 1 week. Conclusions The current experiments indicate that a well‐established interview protocol can, under some circumstances, amplify levels of suggestibility in children.

Research to date has exclusively focused on the implantation of false memories for single events. The current experiment is the first proof of concept that false memories can be implanted for repeated autobiographical experiences using an adapted false memory implantation paradigm. We predicted that false memory implantation approaches for repeated events would generate fewer false memories compared to the classic implantation method for single events. We assigned students to one of three implantation conditions in our study: Standard, Repeated, and Gradual. Participants underwent three interview sessions with a 1week interval between sessions. In the Standard condition, we exposed participants to a single-event implantation method in all three interviews. In the Repeated condition, participants underwent a repeated-event implantation method in the three interviews. The Gradual condition also consisted of a repeated-event implantation method, however, in the first interview alone, we suggested to participants that they had experienced the false narrative once. Surprisingly, within our sample, false memories rates in the Standard condition were not higher compared to the Repeated and Gradual conditions. Although sometimes debated, our results imply that false memories for repeated events can be implanted in lab conditions, likely with the same ease as false memories for single events.

The current study compared older children 's (11/12-year-olds) and adolescents ' (14/15-year-olds) vulnerability to false memory creation using two different methods (i.e., the Deese/ Roediger-McDermott [DRM] and memory conformity paradigms) involving neutral and negative stimuli. In line with previous research, a developmental reversal effect was found for the DRM paradigm, which means that when employing this method children displayed lower false memory levels than adolescents. However, when using the memory conformity paradigm, the opposite pattern was found, with adolescents forming fewer false memories than children. This indicates that in a co-witness context, adolescents are less prone to memory errors than children. The emotional valence of the stimuli used in both paradigms did not notably affect the production of false memories. There was no statistically significant correlation between false memories as measured by the DRM and the memory conformity paradigms. Altogether, the current study indicates that there is no single type of false memory as different experimental paradigms evoke different types of erroneous recollections. Additionally, our study corroborates past findings in the literature concerning the issue of developmental reversal, strengthening the idea that under certain circumstances children might indeed be better witnesses than adolescents. ARTICLE HISTORY

People who falsely remember to be sexually abused as a child sometimes report memories of repeated abuse. Research to date, however, has exclusively focused on the implantation of false memories for single events. We investigated false memory formation for repeated autobiographical experiences using an adapted false memory implantation paradigm. We predicted that false memories for repeated events would be harder to implant compared to false memories for single events. We assigned students to one of three implantation conditions: two focused on the implantation of repeated events and another focused on the implantation of single events. Participants underwent three interview sessions with a 1-week interval. Surprisingly, false memories for repeated events were more easily implanted than false memories for single events. Although sometimes debated, our results imply that false memories for repeated events can be implanted and are perhaps even easier to induce than false memories for single events.