Can Fabricated Evidence Induce False
previous eyewitness studies, we set out to examine whether people will falsely
obtaining false eyewitness testimony. Before describing this novel procedure, we review
th
o
Misinformation, false beliefs and false memories
Researchers have amply demonstrated the ease with which false information can lead
people to report witnessing events that never happened, or to give inaccurate reports about
APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
Appl. Cognit. Psychol. (2009)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/acp.1607*Correspondence to: Kimberley A. Wade, Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4
7
Ce scientific literature that shows verbal suggestions, and fabricated evidence in the form
f digitally manipulated images, can alter people’s autobiographies.accuse another person of committing a misdemeanour when there are ostensibly real
consequences to making that accusation. To this end we developed a new experimental
procedure—a laboratory analogue for exposing witnesses to fabricated evidence andEyewitness Testimony?
KIMBERLEY A. WADE*, SARAH L. GREEN and ROBERT A. NASH
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
SUMMARY
False information can influence people’s beliefs and memories. But can fabricated evidence induce
individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did? We examined whether
exposure to a fabricated video could produce false eyewitness testimony. Subjects completed a
gambling task alongside a confederate subject, and later we falsely told subjects that their partner had
cheated on the task. Some subjects viewed a digitally manipulated video of their partner cheating;
some were told that video evidence of the cheating exists; and others were not told anything about
video evidence. Subjects were asked to sign a statement confirming that they witnessed the incident
and that their corroboration could be used in disciplinary action against the accused. See-video
subjects were three times more likely to sign the statement than Told-video and Control subjects.
Fabricated evidence may, indeed, produce false eyewitness testimony; we discuss probable cognitive
mechanisms. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
‘The time was, we thought of photographs as recorders of reality. Now we know they
largely invent reality’, writes Holland Cotter of The New York Times (Cotter, 2008). He is
right of course: Digital-trickery is part-and-parcel of everyday life. Yet fabricated images
or video-footage can be extraordinarily compelling and difficult to detect, and forensic
experts are increasingly called upon in criminal and civil cases to determinewhether digital
evidence has been altered (Peterson, 2006). In this paper we examine whether doctored
video-footage can induce people to testify about an event they never witnessed. UnlikeAL, UK. E-mail: K.A.Wade@warwick.ac.uk
opyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

demonstration that suggested the event was more violent than it truly was. Subjects
K. A. Wade et al.exposed to the doctored photo remembered the demonstration as being more violent and
reported less inclination to participate in future demonstrations than did subjects exposed
to the real photo. These findings, and the false memory literature more generally, show that
false information or fabricated evidence can be powerfully suggestive; it can alter
individuals’ beliefs and cultivate rich false memories about both public and personal
events.
Based on false memory studies, scientists have argued that false suggestions could
induce people to testify about events they never witnessed (Loftus, 2003). Yet there are
important differences between false memory studies and real-life crimes. Specifically, in
false memory studies subjects usually report erroneous information about something they
have witnessed, or something they have done, in response to a misleading suggestion.
Importantly, there are no consequences for reporting inaccurate information. However, in
the real world, when eyewitnesses report erroneous information they are providing
testimony about another person’s actions, and they know that their testimony will be used
against the accused in a criminal trial. What we do not know, then, is whether false
information might lead people to provide testimony when doing so has real ramifications.
In the current research, we ask whether doctored video-footage can induce people to
testify about a misdemeanour they never witnessed. Doctored photos and videos are a
powerful form of suggestion which makes them ideal for studying eyewitness phenomena.
If people believe they have witnessed an event, and are motivated to recall that event,
doctored video-footage could constitute a source of compelling and perceptually detailed
images that may encourage them to develop false beliefs (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay,
1993; Lindsay, 2008). In turn, if these distortions are sufficiently convincing and realistic,
subjects may bear witness to a fictitious event. We tested this hypothesis using the false
video procedure.
The false-video procedure
Our procedure is modelled on that used by Nash and Wade (2009), whose subjects
completed a gambling task and were later accused of having cheated on the task. In that
study, subjects who saw a doctored video of themselves ostensibly cheating—withdrawing
money from the bank when they should have deposited money into the bank—were more
likely to believe they were guilty than were subjects who were merely told that video-
evidence existed. In the present study, subjects also completed the gambling task, but they
did it alongside a confederate subject. Later, instead of accusing subjects of cheating,
we falsely told subjects that their partner had cheated on the task. Some subjects viewedevents that did happen (Loftus, 2005). Misinformation can come in different forms, such as
in a leading question or in a co-witness’s testimony (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003;
Loftus & Palmer, 1974; see Wright, Memon, Skagerberg, & Gabbert, 2009 for a recent
review). But in recent years, memory researchers have used an especially compelling form
of misinformation—digitally manipulated photos and videos—to elicit false beliefs and
memories in people (Garry & Wade, 2005; Nash, Wade, & Lindsay, 2009; Strange,
Sutherland, & Garry, 2006; Wade, Garry, Nash, & Harper, 2009; Wade, Garry, Read, &
Lindsay, 2002; see Garry & Gerrie, 2005 for a review). Sacchi, Agnoli, and Loftus (2007),
for instance, exposed adults to photographs of significant public events; including a major
peace demonstration that took place in Rome. Some subjects viewed doctored photos of thefake video evidence of their partner cheating alongside them (See-video group); others
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/acp