When lying changes memory for the truth

Abstract

In the legal field, victims and offenders frequently lie to avoid talking about serious incidents, such as past experiences of sexual abuse or criminal involvement. Although these individuals may initially lie about an experienced event, oftentimes these same people eventually abandon their lies and are forthcoming with what truly happened. To date, it is unclear whether such lying affects later statements about one's memory for the experienced event. The impetus of the present review is to compile the current state of knowledge on the effects of lying on memory. Based on existing literature, we will describe how deceptive strategies (e.g., false denials) regarding what is remembered may affect memory in consequential ways, such as forgetting of details, falsely remembering features that were not present, or a combination of both. It will be argued that the current literature suggests that mnemonic outcome is contingent on the type of lie and we will propose a theoretical framework outlining which forms of lying likely result in certain memory outcomes. Potential avenues of future research also will be discussed.

Imagining a false alibi impairs concealed memory detection with the autobiographical Implicit Association Test.

“…However, imagining a counterfactual version of an event may also interfere with the veridical memory of the event and decrease its implicit truth value (cf. Otgaar & Baker, 2018). Gronau et al (2015) asked participants to learn a hypothetical crime scenario with various details that were different from a mock crime they had actually conduced.…”

Cognitive Mechanisms Behind the Memory-Undermining Effect of Feigned Crime-Related Amnesia

“…Of interest, simulators increased distortions from T1 to T2 on the free recollection test. Conceivably, when participants instructed to feign amnesia come up with a self-generated version of the crime, which is strongly related to the original event, distortions are more likely to occur (Chrobak & Zaragoza, 2008;Otgaar & Baker, 2017;Van Oorsouw & Giesbrecht, 2008).…”

“…However, possible memory decrements for feigners might depend on simulating amnesia in itself rather than a mere lack of rehearsal (e.g., Christianson & Bylin 1999;. That is, drawing on the Memory and Deception (MAD) framework (Otgaar & Baker, 2017), feigning amnesia is inserted in a lying-continuum from false denial to fabrication of alternative scenarios. According to the MAD, the amount of cognitive resources required by individuals is directly proportional to the type of lie exerted, and the memory outcome for the actual target event is strictly affected by the different lie adopted.…”

“…According to the MAD, the amount of cognitive resources required by individuals is directly proportional to the type of lie exerted, and the memory outcome for the actual target event is strictly affected by the different lie adopted. More precisely, whereas false denial implies less cognitive resources leading to omission, fabricating entire stories ex novo requires more cognitive resources leading to commission errors (Otgaar & Baker, 2017).…”

“…Relatedly, some studies have found that participants initially asked to pretend memory loss for the criminal experience increased the number of memory errors over time (e.g., van Oorsouw and Giesbrecht, 2008). Albeit claims of crime-related amnesia might mostly lead to omissions (e.g., Christianson and Bylin, 1999;, in some circumstances the act of feigning amnesia might even imply distorting and/or fabricating new information on the initial memory test (see also Otgaar & Baker, 2017). Thus, it is quiet common that feigning participants report more errors over time as compared with genuinely responding participants (i.e., confessors).…”