False denial is a deceptive strategy that requires fewer cognitive resources than other strategies (e.g. simulating amnesia, fabrication). In the present experiment, we examined the effects of different types of false denials varying in cognitive load on memory. Participants (N = 159) watched a video (theft) and then answered some questions about it. Some participants had to tell the truth about the theft, while others were either asked to falsely deny all the event-related details (i.e. simple false denial) or to falsely deny just some details of the same event (i.e. complex false denial). After two days, all participants completed a memory task in which they truthfully recognized whether details were (i) discussed during the interview or (ii) seen in the video. Additionally, recall scores (i.e. correct details, omissions, commissions) of the memory for the event were assessed. Participants who falsely denied all details reported a higher memory impairment for the interview than the other groups. Interestingly, liars who were engaged in complex denying had the largest memory impairment for the event and reported more commissions than those in the simple false denial group. This experiment shows that under certain conditions, memory is increasingly impaired for high cognitive load lies.

Inthe current experiment, we were interested in the effects of lying (i.e. false denial or fabrication) on memory when deceptivestrategies were repeatedly executed. Participants (n = 121) watched a video (i.e., electrician who committed a burglary) and immediately afterand during the following ten days, they were instructed to either falsely deny, fabricate, or answer honestly to certain details of the video.Some details were discussed (i.e. denied, fabricated, or honestly answered) either once, or four times. Other details were never discussed.Finally, all participants received a memory test, in which they were asked whether they either previously discussed the details or saw thedetails during the video. Although, overall, repeated lying did not undermine memory for having discussed certain details, repeated falselydenying led to an impairment of the memory for the event. Findings show that lying can adversely affect memory and that repeated lying canincrease this effect.

The present experiment aimed to examine how fabrication can affect memory. In particular, we examined whether different types of fabrication can lead to different mnemonic effects. A sample of 159 participants watched a video of a robbery and subsequently answered some questions about it. Participants were divided into three conditions: one group was instructed to tell the truth (i.e., truth-telling group), while the other two groups were instructed to lie either by partially distorting details (i.e., distortion group) or by completely making up wrong details of the event seen in the video (i.e., fabrication group). Two days later, participants completed a final memory test where they honestly answered recognition and recall questions concerning: (i) memory for the video and (ii) memory for having discussed details during the interview. Results showed that different types of fabrication affect liars’ memory differently. Fabricators reported an undermining of memory for the event, whereas those who partially distorted details reported a higher impairment for the interview. Our findings showed that the effects of lying on liars’ memory might be determined by the cognitive resources required to lie.

Research on the effects of lying and memory is increasingly attracting empirical attention. In the current manuscript, a scientometric analysis was carried out on the mnemonic consequences of lying. This analysis took into account 70 published articles extracted from Scopus and Web of Science databases from 1998 to 2021. A scientometric analysis was conducted in order to visualize the state of the art on this line of research (i.e., authors, countries, institutions, journals, and co-citations). Additionally, a keywords’ cluster analysis was executed to investigate the main keywords used in the published papers. Based on the keywords’ cluster analysis, we identified the main aims and critical issues of the reviewed papers. The United States and the Netherlands are the two most productive countries into the effects of lying on memory. The top five authors are mainly from European countries and wrote from 6 to 15 articles. The cluster analysis detected three clusters of keywords. The critical issues of this line of research are mainly related to the generalizability of the achieved findings for real situations, a lack of a direct control of the manipulation adopted, and a need of additional measures. The current analysis provides a comprehensive overview and understanding of existing research on the effects of lying on memory and provides possible future directions of this research domain.

Recent studies have demonstrated that lying can affect memory and that such memory effects are based on the cognitive load required in performing the lie. The present study aimed to verify whether the impact of two deceptive strategies (i.e., false denials and fabrication) depends on individuals' cognitive resources in terms of Executive Functions (i.e., EF: Shifting, Inhibition, and Updating). A sample of 147 participants watched a video of a robbery and then were instructed to either fabricate (i.e., fabrication condition), deny (i.e. false denial condition), or tell the truth (i.e., truth-telling condition) to some questions about the crime. Two days later, all participants had to provide an honest account on a final memory test where they indicated their memory for having discussed details (i.e., fabricated, denied, or told the truth) and their memory for the video. Finally, their EF resources were also assessed. Our findings demonstrated that individual differences in EFs played a role in how the event was recalled and on the effects of lying on memory. That is, memory for the event after having lied depended especially on individuals' Shifting resources. We also found that the two deceptive strategies differentially affected individuals' memory for the interview and for the event: Denying affected memory for the interview while fabricating affected memory for the event. Our findings can inform legal professionals on the possibility to assess individuals' EF as an indicator of witnesses' credibility.