When a lie becomes the truth: The effects of self‐generated misinformation on eyewitness memory

Abstract

This research investigated whether generating misinformation impairs memory for actual information. After watching a videotaped robbery, some witnesses were interviewed about it, but others did not rehearse the event details. One week later, the witnesses tried to remember the robber's appearance. In Experiment 1, those who fabricated a description of the robber during the interview and those who did not rehearse remembered fewer correct details than did truthful witnesses or those who fabricated about another person. Witnesses who fabricated about the robber also reported more incorrect details than did truthful or non-interviewed witnesses. In Experiment 2, witnesses who fabricated about the robber performed as poorly on the memory test as did witnesses who answered interview questions using false information prepared for them. In both experiments deceptive witnesses sometimes reported invented details on the memory test, suggesting that they may have come to believe some fabrications.

The Basic-Systems Model of Episodic Memory

“…Verbal recoding and rehearsal of a stimulus improves memory if the verbal label that is rehearsed leads to or counts as a correct response (Crowder, 1976;Kausler, 1974). However, if the verbal recoding does not lead to or is not counted as a correct response, verbal rehearsal can cause a decrement in performance (Pickel, 2004;Tversky & Marsh, 2000). In these cases, the verbal response does not appear to replace the sensory component that was recoded into language, but rather provides an alternative that can affect what is retrieved (Brown & Lenneberg, 1954;Dudukovic, Marsh, & Tversky, 2004;Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990).…”

The Development of Differential Mnemonic Effects of False Denials and Forced Confabulations

“…Extending this line of work, certain types of false denials might also be caused by victims lying that nothing happened to them (e.g., about sexual abuse; Block et al, 2012;Pickel, 2004). Indeed, recently, there has been an attempt to examine the mnemonic effects of (deceptive) false denials.…”

Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool.

“…Thus, subsequent retrieval attempts are likely to be facilitated by a good, and impeded by a bad, quality initial recall respectively (e.g., Hashtroudi, Johnson, Vnek & Ferguson, 1994;Marsh, Tversky & Hutson, 2005;Suengas & Johnson, 1988;Tversky & Marsh, 2000;though see McCauley &Brock et al, 1999). A poor quality initial recall can be particularly detrimental as recall errors made in an initial retrieval attempt may be repeated in future retrievals (see Pickel, 2004). Furthermore, the act of recalling an incomplete subset of information from an episodic memory can sometimes impair one's ability to subsequently recall the remaining (unrecalled) items of information (e.g., Koutstaal, Schacter, Johnson & Galluccio, 1999;Roediger & Neely, 1982;Shaw, Bjork & Handal, 1995).…”