Confabulation occurs when people fill in gaps in their memory with fabricated or distorted details that they mistakenly believe to be true (Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993). This behavior is often unintentional and can arise from various factors. For example, individuals may confabulate to meet perceived demands, answer questions, or satisfy expectations from others (Hanba & Zaragoza, 2007). Social pressure and the need to provide plausible answers can lead to false memories and confabulated responses. Additionally, those with poorer memory abilities or learning disabilities are more prone to confabulation, as they may struggle to accurately recall information (Clare & Gudjonsson, 1993). Overall, confabulation can result from the brain’s attempt to fill memory gaps with coherent but inaccurate details.
Instances of confabulation are elevated among criminal justice-involved populations due to several contributing factors. Individuals in this context often face intense social pressure and high-stakes questioning, which can lead to the creation of false memories or distorted details to meet perceived demands or expectations. The stress and coercion experienced during interrogations can exacerbate memory distortions, leading to confabulated responses. Additionally, those with poorer memory abilities or learning disabilities, who are more prevalent in criminal justice settings, are more susceptible to confabulation. The high-pressure environment and the need to provide plausible explanations can result in the frequent occurrence of confabulated accounts among these populations.
Some potential red flag indicators of confabulation include poor memory engagement and inconsistencies between the ability to recall information and cognitive function. Individuals who confabulate may exhibit a noticeable disconnect between their reported memories and their actual cognitive performance, revealing a lack of reliability in how they remember and process information. Additional indicators may include inaccurate responses, inconsistent levels of confidence (both high confidence in incorrect details and low confidence despite accurate information), and a tendency to fill gaps in memory with fabricated or distorted details.
In forensic settings, the implications of confabulation are significant due to the effects of confirmatory feedback on eyewitness testimony (Hanba & Zaragoza, 2007). When eyewitnesses are repeatedly interviewed, the feedback they receive can inflate their confidence in confabulated or inaccurate information (Hanba & Zaragoza, 2007). This inflated confidence can mislead evaluators, such as jurors, who often lack knowledge of the witness’s interrogation history and may wrongly perceive the heightened confidence as a marker of accuracy (Hanba & Zaragoza, 2007). As a result, confabulated information, presented with high confidence due to positive reinforcement, can be mistakenly deemed credible (Hanba & Zaragoza, 2007), impacting the integrity of judicial outcomes and clinical assessments.
Hanba, J. M., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2007).Interviewer feedback in repeated interviews involving forced confabulation.Links to an external site. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(4), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1286
Clare, I. C.H., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1993). Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation, and acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap): Implications for reliability during police interrogations.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1993.tb01059.x
