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

Abstract

Citation:Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Memon, A. & Wang, J. (2014). The development of differential mnemonic effects of false denials and forced confabulations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 32(6), pp. 718-731. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2148 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent AbstractThe current experiment was designed to assess the mnemonic consequences of false denials and forced confabulations. Children (6-to 8-and 10-to 12-year-olds) and adults viewed a video and their memory and belief about the event were tested. Participants were then divided into three groups. In the Cued Recall condition, participants were asked to answer true-and false-event questions, but could choose not to respond if they did not know the answer. In the Forced Confabulation group, participants received the same set of questions, but were forced to answer all of them. In the False Denial group, participants were instructed to falsely deny in response to each question. One week later, participants received a source memory test, and they had to provide memory and belief ratings once more. Forced confabulations resulted in false memories in the youngest group. Moreover, our analyses showed that repeated false denials led to children and adults to be highly inclined to falsely deny that they had talked to the experimenter about certain presented details when in fact they had done so. Furthermore, false denial and nonbelieved memory rates were more pronounced in younger than in older children and adults.Our results imply that denying experienced events is not a good strategy in an interviewing setting as it adversely affects memory statements about the interview.

When lying changes memory for the truth

“…There are several forensically relevant contexts in which lying about what one remembers may occur. For example, victims of sexual abuse often delay disclosing an abusive experience through strategies such as falsely denying the abusive event altogether (Block et al, 2012;Goodman-Brown, Edelstein, Goodman, Jones, & Gordon, 2003;Sjöberg, & Lindblad, 2002; but see Lyon, 2007 andOtgaar, Howe, Memon, &Wang, 2014), which has put false denials at the forefront of discussions about sexual abuse allegations. Furthermore, false denials often are communicated by offenders trying to avoid culpability for a particular crime (e.g., Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, & Einarsson, 2004).…”

Forgetting having denied: The “amnesic” consequences of denial

“…We have recently shown that denials can affect memory in a unique way (Otgaar, Howe, Memon, & Wang, 2014 ; Otgaar, Howe, Smeets, & Wang, 2016 ). In our experiments, participants were presented with some stimuli (e.g., a video), and after this, one group had to deny that certain details had been presented when in fact they had.…”

Generating lies produces lower memory predictions and higher memory performance than telling the truth: Evidence for a metacognitive illusion.

“…Yet, in real life, sometimes witnesses lie intentionally. However, very few studies have examined the effects of deliberate lying on subsequent memory performance (for a few exceptions, see Colwell et al, 2011;Pickel, 2004;Polage, 2004Polage, , 2012Otgaar, Howe, Memon, & Wang, 2014;Vieira & Lane, 2013) The very few studies that investigated the effects of deliberate lying on memory reveal that the incorrect generated plausible information can sometimes be remembered more or at the same rate, as compared with a control group or control condition (Vieira & Lane, 2013;Pickel, 2004). For example, Pickel (2004) showed that participants who were deliberately asked to fabricate details about a perpetrator in a video remembered more incorrect details and less correct details than the control group.…”