One of the encoding failures is blocking. Blocking is generally defined as a failure to retrieve information from one’s memory, although one actively tries to recall it. Another failure is memory misattribution, which is the phenomenon of assigning an idea or a recollection to a wrong source. Finally, one of the failures of forgetting is suggestibility. It is the tendency to introduce information from external sources into personal recollection. These breakdowns typically occur in long-term memory. An example of blocking is a situation, when a person in the course of talking cannot remember some word. Misattribution happens when a person is certain that they heard some piece of information from a news source, while in fact they heard it from a friend. Finally, an example of suggestibility is a situation when a parent ties to convince a child that the latter has never seen them cheating.
As seen from the above, despite being relied upon and trusted for many crucial areas of life, human memory is not an accurate mirror of past events. People tend to remember only a few details of an event as every situation presents too much information to ingest and remember. When recalling an event, people tend to fill in the gaps with distorted or false memories based on their imagination or others’ suggestions. False memories emerge from recalling events that never took place or from making mistakes when remembering the details of an event. While researchers have demonstrated that memories are malleable and people cannot reliably distinguish true memories from false memories (Loftus, 2013), they are still trusted at crucial times such as jury deliberations.
Perhaps the worst effect of false memories might be observed in the field of criminal justice, given that it might lead to wrongful convictions and to irreversibly change the lives of people. Namely, mistaken identifications is the primary cause of wrongful convictions (Osborne & Davies, 2013). Gudjonsson et al (2014) internalized false confessions that happen as a result of false memories. According to the authors, certain parts of criminal justice procedure such as coercive interviewing and lengthy solitary confinement might lead to memory distrust regarding the alleged offences (Gudjonsson et al, 2014).
Although, a number of individual factors might increase the likelihood of false memory formation. These are cognitive factors (lack of confidence in memory), personality factors (compliance), motivational (desire to assist the police), and health problems (Gudjonsson et al, 2014). For many years the eyewitness testimony was one of the most important factor influencing court decisions. Yet, relatively recent studies demonstrate the problems with this criminal justice procedure. Namely, Loftus (2013) discussed the dangerous implications of relying on fallible eyewitness recollections. Giving the example of a rape case where the victim wrongfully identified a man called Steve Titus as the perpetrator.
Titus was arrested because his car resembled that of the rapist. The police provided a line-up of six men and the victim was asked to identify the perpetrator. Encouraged to concentrate and choose one man, the victim shook her head in confusion and said “This one is the closest […] it has to be this one” (Loftus and Ketcham, 1991, p.38). Over the course of the trial, the victim filled in the gaps in her memory and became convinced that Titus was guilty.
Understanding memory flaws is crucial, because one’s memory can be manipulated with, and events that have never happened can be ‘created’. The fact that memories can be created is supported by a big number of empirical studies. To demonstrate that witnesses tend to fabricate imagined experiences to compensate for memory gaps, Loftus, Miller and Burns (1978) carried out studies using simulated car accidents. The researchers showed participants slides and asking them questions about what had happened.
When the researchers used words and questions which deliberately mislead their subjects (such as asking if the participant saw the truck smash into the car), the use of strong adjectives such as smash encouraged participants to recall seeing broken glass when no such physical damage was presented in the slides. This study is reminiscent of the DRM paradigm which was introduced by Deese (1959) and expanded by Roediger and McDermott (1995). Using lists of words aimed to trigger another similar word (for example the words candy, sour and honey to trigger the word ‘sweet’), the researchers asked study participants to recall the words on that list. Interestingly, the study showed that participants falsely recalled the target word which did not feature on the list.
The fact that old memories, such as childhood memories, can also be fabricated, is supported empirically. In the early 1990s, Loftus devised a study with an undergraduate student James Coan, where the aim was to plant false memories of being lost as a child in a shopping mall in the minds of their participants. The researchers successfully planted this memory in approximately one quarter of their subjects (Loftus, 2013). Detailing a number of cases where therapists implanted disturbing memories in the minds of their patients, Loftus (1997) gave the example of Beth Rutherford’s 1992 case, where she was encouraged by a church counselor to recall being raped by her father, a clergyman. Medical examination at a later date revealed that she was a virgin but since the allegations became public, her father retired. Rutherford sued the therapist and was awarded $1 million. This once again demonstrates the importance of taking memory flaws into account.
