Witnesses who discuss an event before being questioned incorporate each other's details into their own memories, including details they never saw.
Gabbert and colleagues showed pairs of witnesses different versions of the same event, let them discuss it, and found a substantial share then reported items only the other had seen, often with confidence and no sense of having borrowed them. The finding is why investigators separate witnesses, and why a consistent account from several people who have talked is weaker evidence than one account.
In practice
- Three colleagues agree on what was said in the meeting after discussing it, and the agreement was manufactured by the discussion.
- A family's shared version of a childhood event is sharper than any individual memory and partly invented.
- Further reading
- Wikipedia
- Subject
- Psychology & Behavior
- Essay
- A century and a half of measuring the mind