Search

A suspect of a crime can avoid legal repercussions by creating a false alibi. We examined whether creating such a false alibi can have adverse effects on memory. To do so, participants watched a mock crime video and were either instructed to create a false alibi or to provide an honest account for what they actually saw in the video. After a 2-day and 1-month delay, all participants were instructed to come forward with the truth using a free recall task. Participants who initially created a false alibi had more commission errors after a 2-day and 1-month delay (vs. truth telling participants). Moreover, participants who created a false alibi reported fewer correct details after a 2-day and 1-month delay (vs. truth telling participants). Our study suggests that like other types of deception, creating a false alibi can elicit memory undermining effects in the form of commission and omission errors.

Research on the effects of lying and memory is increasingly attracting empirical attention. In the current manuscript, a scientometric analysis was carried out on the mnemonic consequences of lying. This analysis took into account 70 published articles extracted from Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1998 to 2021. A scientometric analysis was conducted in order to visualize the state of the art on this line of research (i.e., authors, countries, institutions, journals, and co-citations). Additionally, a keywords' cluster analysis was executed to investigate the main keywords used in the published papers. Based on the keywords' cluster analysis, we identified the main aims and critical issues of the reviewed papers. The United States and the Netherlands are the two most productive countries into the effects of lying on memory. The top five authors are mainly from European countries and wrote from 6 to 15 articles. The cluster analysis detected three clusters of keywords. The critical issues of this line of research are mainly related to the generalizability of the achieved findings for real situations, a lack of a direct control of the manipulation adopted, and a need of additional measures. The current analysis provides a comprehensive overview and understanding of existing research on the effects of lying on memory and provides possible future directions of this research domain. ispartof: FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY vol:13 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

Research on the effects of lying and memory is increasingly attracting empirical attention. In the current manuscript, a scientometric analysis was carried out on the mnemonic consequences of lying. This analysis took into account 70 published articles extracted from Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1998 to 2021. A scientometric analysis was conducted in order to visualize the state of the art on this line of research (i.e., authors, countries, institutions, journals, and co-citations). Additionally, a keywords' cluster analysis was executed to investigate the main keywords used in the published papers. Based on the keywords' cluster analysis, we identified the main aims and critical issues of the reviewed papers. The United States and the Netherlands are the two most productive countries into the effects of lying on memory. The top five authors are mainly from European countries and wrote from 6 to 15 articles. The cluster analysis detected three clusters of keywords. The critical issues of this line of research are mainly related to the generalizability of the achieved findings for real situations, a lack of a direct control of the manipulation adopted, and a need of additional measures. The current analysis provides a comprehensive overview and understanding of existing research on the effects of lying on memory and provides possible future directions of this research domain.

Research suggests that both internal (i.e., lying) and external (i.e., misinformation) factors can affect memory for a crime. We aimed to explore the effects of post‐event misinformation on crime‐related amnesia claims. We showed participants a mock crime and asked them to either simulate amnesia (simulators) or confess to it (confessors). Next, some participants were provided with misinformation. Finally, all participants were requested to genuinely recollect the crime. Overall, simulators reported less correct information than confessors. Moreover, these two groups were equally vulnerable to misinformation. In addition, exploratory analyses on strategies adopted by simulators revealed that those who previously, mostly omitted information while simulating amnesia exhibited the lowest amount of correct details. Simulators who instead used a mixed strategy disclosed more fabricated memory errors. Findings suggest that legal professionals and jurors should take into account that even offenders, irrespective of confessing or simulating memory loss for a crime, can be susceptible to post‐event misinformation.

Inthe current experiment, we were interested in the effects of lying (i.e. false denial or fabrication) on memory when deceptivestrategies were repeatedly executed. Participants (n = 121) watched a video (i.e., electrician who committed a burglary) and immediately afterand during the following ten days, they were instructed to either falsely deny, fabricate, or answer honestly to certain details of the video.Some details were discussed (i.e. denied, fabricated, or honestly answered) either once, or four times. Other details were never discussed.Finally, all participants received a memory test, in which they were asked whether they either previously discussed the details or saw thedetails during the video. Although, overall, repeated lying did not undermine memory for having discussed certain details, repeated falselydenying led to an impairment of the memory for the event. Findings show that lying can adversely affect memory and that repeated lying canincrease this effect

Purpose: Forensic interviewers often face witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. In this experimental study, we examined the extent to which cooperativeness instructions affect information disclosure in a witness investigative interview.Methods: One hundred and thirty‐six participants watched a recorded mock‐crime and were interviewed twice as mock‐witnesses. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions instructing different levels of cooperativeness: Control (no instructions), Cooperation, No Cooperation, and No Cooperation plus Cooperation. The cooperativeness instructions aimed to influence how participants’ perceived the costs and benefits of cooperation. We predicted that Cooperation and No Cooperation instructions would increase and decrease information disclosure and accuracy, respectively.Results: We found decreased information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, accuracy in the No Cooperation and No Cooperation plus Cooperation conditions. In a second interview, the shift of instructions from No Cooperation to Cooperation led to a limited increase of information disclosure at no cost of accuracy. Cooperativeness instructions partially influenced the communication strategies participants used to disclose or withhold information.Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the detrimental effects of uncooperativeness on information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the accuracy of witness statements. We discuss the implications of a lack of witness cooperation and the importance of gaining witness cooperation to facilitate information disclosure in investigative interviews.

Two field studies tested the effect of alcohol intoxication on memory for a live interaction at immediate, delayed, and repeated testing. In Study 1 (N=86), one researcher presented bar tenants with (misleading) questions regarding a preceding interaction with another researcher. One week later, participants' memory was tested again. Study 2 (N=189) added a delayed-testing only condition. We hypothesized intoxication to impair memory and enhance suggestibility and explored whether time of testing affected the outcome on these variables. In Study 1, intoxication reduced completeness and increased suggestibility. In Study 2, intoxication reduced completeness and increased suggestibility in delayed-only and repeated testing, compared with immediate testing. Sober participants benefited from repeated testing in Study 2, but not Study 1. Findings lend support for consolidation and decay theory and suggest that immediate (intoxicated) testing is preferable over delayed-only testing. Findings provide little support for alcohol myopia theory.

Previous studies demonstrated that, when asked to honestly provide information about a mock crime, former feigners performed worse than those who were requested to confess to this event. Thus, feigning amnesia for a mock crime undermined genuine memory for the same experience. In the present study, we examined whether retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) underlies this memory-undermining effect. After watching a mock crime, participants had to feign amnesia or confess to having committed that crime. Feigners were given retrieval practice instructions (i.e., retrieval-practice group) or no further instructions (i.e., control group). Immediately and 1 day later, all participants had to genuinely report what they remembered about the crime. Although simulators in the retrieval-practice group recalled the largest amount of information as a positive consequence of retrieval, the ratio for crucial crime-related details was lower than that exhibited by both simulators who were given no instructions and confessors. These findings suggest that RIF might play a role in forgetting critical information in claims of crime-related amnesia. Theoretical and practical implications will be discussed. ispartof: FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY vol:10 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

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.