Exploring false memory; addressing the gaps in

eyewitness interviewing to enhance

What happens when the lines between dreams and reality because blurred and unclear? False

memory is the concept of the recollection of an event that did not actually occur. All humans are

susceptible to experiencing false memory and in ordinary, daily life, the most damage it can

cause is losing an argument to a sibling or partner about the facts of an event. However, in the

case of eyewitness testimonies, the presence of false memory can cause serious harm to the

0
witness and/or others. In some cases, it has led to false imprisonments/convictions, loss of

justice, witness discredibility and death sentences. Experts including investigators, judges and

interrogating officers should be familiar with all aspects of false memory and be aware of how

their interviewing techniques directly contribute to the credibility of eyewitness testimonies. This

paper examines various factors influencing memory accuracy to improve the credibility of

eyewitness testimony and highlights the gaps and suggestions involved with false memory.

Memory Errors in Eyewitness Testimony

The reliability of human memory, especially in legal contexts, has significant

implications as inaccurate memories can lead to wrongful judgments. Memory is prone to

reconstruction and false retrieval, compromising eyewitness testimony despite generally being

reliable for daily functioning. Research shows that remembering and imagining events involve

the same neural systems, which can result in false memories where imagined events are recalled

as real. Factors such as frequent questioning and imagining events as real can increase false

memory formation. According to the source monitoring framework, memory errors occur when

individuals cannot distinguish between internally generated memories (imagination) and

externally sourced ones (senses) (Ikier et al., 2022). Real events typically contain richer

perceptual and emotional details than imagined ones, making memory errors more likely when

these details are similar. False memories tend to be less detailed and emotionally intense than

real memories, but repeated questioning and imagination can make them more vivid and increase

confidence in their accuracy. Careful interviewing techniques, including non-suggestive

questioning and minimizing repeated questioning, are crucial in reducing false memories and

enhancing eyewitness reliability. Despite the difficulty in distinguishing reliable from unreliable

testimonies, there is a common belief that such distinctions are easily made. The misinformation

1
paradigm shows that post-event incorrect information can be incorporated into memory,

reinforced by confirmatory feedback, leading to wrongful convictions. Individual differences

significantly influence suggestibility and the likelihood of false confessions. Individuals with an

external locus of control, low self-esteem, and high suggestibility are more prone to false

memories. Factors like high arousal levels can narrow attention and increase susceptibility to

misinformation, as seen in the weapon focus effect, where attention to a weapon reduces

accuracy in recalling other event details (Ikier et al., 2022). Emotional and situational factors

also affect memory accuracy; high arousal can decrease attention and increase memory errors,

and negative emotional scenes often produce more false memories than positive ones. Empathy

towards those involved in a scene can reduce false memories, highlighting the complex

relationship between emotion and memory accuracy. Familiarity can lead to memory errors, with

eyewitnesses potentially misidentifying innocent individuals due to prior encounters or perceived

similarities to the perpetrator. (Ikier et al., 2022). Eyewitness confidence does not always

correlate with accuracy, especially after repeated questioning and feedback. To mitigate these

errors, interviewing techniques should use open-ended questions, avoid forced-choice and

leading questions, and minimize repeated questioning. Tailored interviewing approaches are

necessary to account for individual differences in cognitive and emotional functioning to reduce

memory errors.

The Role of Interviewer Knowledge on Eyewitness Memory

Interviewer knowledge and techniques significantly impact the accuracy of eyewitness

testimony, as illustrated by (Rivard et al., 2023). This study assessed how the level of

information an interviewer possesses before an interview affects the recall accuracy of

eyewitnesses. Participants, who witnessed a mock crime, were interviewed a week later by

2
interviewers who were either accurately informed, misinformed, or uninformed about the case

details. Additionally, some interviewers were instructed to avoid suggestive questions. The

results showed that witnesses provided more accurate and detailed accounts when interviewed by

uninformed interviewers, especially those who avoided suggestive questioning. These findings

highlight the critical need for thorough interviewer training and the risks posed by inaccurate

pre-interview information. This research aligns with the source monitoring framework,

suggesting that interviewer cues can lead to confusion between real and suggested memories. It

also underscores the importance of open-ended questions and avoiding repeated and suggestive

questioning to protect the integrity of eyewitness testimony. Effective training for interviewers is

essential to minimize memory errors and improve the reliability of witness statements.

The Role of Self-Reference and Confirmatory Feedback on Eyewitness Memory

Moreover, the concept of false memory in eyewitness testimonies should not be explored

without taking into account the role of self-relevance as an influencing factor. Recent research

has examined the impact of self-referential processing on the susceptibility to false memories

(Wang et al., 2024). This investigation comprised two experiments with Dutch and Chinese

participants, wherein half of the participants' photographs were digitally inserted into a crime

slideshow, depicting them as victims of a non-violent crime. The remaining participants observed

the slideshow as bystanders. The findings demonstrated that individuals who viewed themselves

as victims were significantly more susceptible to false memories following exposure to

misinformation compared to those who were mere observers of the crime. These results indicate

that self-referential processing increases the susceptibility to false memories (Wang et al., 2024).

This finding implies that victims' memories are more vulnerable to inaccuracies, highlighting the

need for legal practitioners to develop strategies that minimize misleading information and

3
support accurate memory recall. Another influence that plays a role in accuracy of witness

testimonies is the role of Confirmatory Feedback. In two experiments, adults who witnessed a

videotaped event were later interviewed and forced to confabulate information about the event

(Zaragoza et al., 2011). The interviewer provided either confirmatory feedback (e.g., "Yes,

_______ is the correct answer") or neutral feedback (e.g., "O.K. _______") for these fabricated

responses. One week later, participants developed false memories for the information they had

fabricated, with confirmatory feedback significantly increasing their confidence in these false

memories. This confirmatory feedback also made it more likely that participants would report

these false memories one to two months later (Zaragoza et al., 2011). These findings highlight

the powerful role of social-motivational factors in promoting false memory development and

have significant implications for eyewitness interviewing practices. They express the danger of

confirmatory feedback, which can reinforce and create false memories, suggesting that interview

techniques should avoid confirmatory statements and use open-ended, non-leading questions to

preserve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. A final study worth noting to further deepen our

understanding of the topic is on faceless interviews (Hsu et al., 2023). The research explores how

an interviewer's facial features affect eyewitness testimonies. The study aimed to isolate these

influences on memory recall during evidential interviews. Surprisingly, participants interacting

with the faceless avatar recalled more correct (and incorrect) details compared to those with

human interviewers. Notably, participants who believed the avatar was computer-operated

tended to provide more accurate memory reports (Hsu et al., 2023). This highlights the intricate

interplay between cognitive biases and social cues in eyewitness testimonies, with potential

implications for investigative practices and the reliability of witness statements in legal

proceedings.

4
 The study of false memory and its impact on eyewitness testimonies offers valuable

insights into the complexities of human cognition and social interaction. However, gaps in our

understanding persist, necessitating continued research to strengthen the reliability of eyewitness

recall. Experts should focus on the mechanisms underlying memory errors, particularly

concerning factors such as self-referential processing, confirmatory feedback, and the benefits of

blind interviewing over informed ones. Moreover, exploring new technological interviewing

techniques, such as the utilization of faceless avatars, which holds promise for mitigating the

influence of cognitive biases on memory recall. By addressing these gaps and refining

investigative practices, we can foster greater trust in the criminal justice system and uphold the

integrity of eyewitness testimonies.

References

Hsu, C.-W., Gross, J., Colombo, M., & Hayne, H. (2023). Look into my eyes: A “faceless”
avatar interviewer lowers reporting threshold for adult eyewitnesses. Memory &
Cognition, 51(8), 1761–1773. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01424-4

5
Ikier, S., Dönerkayalı, C., Halıcı, Ö. S., Kaymak Gülseren, Z. A., Göksal, H., & Akbaş, B.
(2022). When is memory more reliable? scientific findings, theories, and myths. Applied
Neuropsychology: Adult, 31(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2107928

Rivard, J., Carlson, V., LaBat, D. E., & Compo, N. S. (2023). The delayed impact of informed
versus blind interviewing on eyewitness memory. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
29(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12253

Wang, J., Wang, B., Otgaar, H., Patihis, L., & Sauerland, M. (2024). Self‐relevance enhances
susceptibility to false memory. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 42(2), 79–95.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2644

Zaragoza, M. S., Payment, K. E., Ackil, J. K., Drivdahl, S. B., & Beck, M. (2011). Interviewing
witnesses: Forced confabulation and confirmatory feedback increase false memories.
Psychological Science, 12(6), 473–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00388