Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1190–1195 | Cite as

Inventing stories: Forcing witnesses to fabricate entire fictitious events leads to freely reported false memories

Brief Reports

Abstract

Studies of the forced fabrication effect have shown that participant witnesses are prone to developing false memories for specific items or details that they have been forced to fabricate earlier (e.g., what type of hat someone wore). Building on these earlier findings, the present study assessed whether participants would develop false memories if forced to fabricate entire fictitious events that were more complex and extended in time and involved people, locations, and actions that they had never seen. Participants vehemently resisted fabricating these events, and false memory development over the short term (1-week recognition test) was limited. However, after 8 weeks, participants freely reported their forced fabrications nearly 50% of the time and did so even when they had correctly and publicly rejected them earlier on the 1-week recognition test. This is the first evidence that participant witnesses will freely incorporate into their eyewitness accounts entire fictitious events that they have earlier been forced to fabricate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1998). Memorial consequences of forced confabulation: Age differences in susceptibility to false memories. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1358–1372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  3. Gerrie, M. P., Belcher, L. E., & Garry, M. (2006). “Mind the gap”: False memories for missing aspects of an event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 689–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grant, T. (Producer), & Sullivan, K. (Director) (1989). Looking for miracles [Motion picture]. United States: Sullivan Entertainment.Google Scholar
  5. Hanba, J. M., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2007). Interviewer feedback in repeated interviews involving forced confabulation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Trabasso, T., Secco, T., & van den Broek, P. W. (1984). Causal cohesion and story coherence. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and comprehension of text (pp. 83–111). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Zaragoza, M. S., Payment, K. E., Ackil, J. K., Drivdahl, S. B., & Beck, M. (2001). Interviewing witnesses: Forced confabulation and confirmatory feedback increase false memories. Psychological Science, 12, 473–477.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKent State UniversityKent

Personalised recommendations