Report on Memory Distortion in Judicial Contexts: An Analysis of Complainant and Accused Susceptibility

Executive Summary

This report details the findings of three experiments (N=1341) investigating the susceptibility of individuals to memory distortion in a simulated sexual assault scenario. The research addresses a critical gap in judicial psychology, where the memory of complainants is often scrutinized more heavily than that of the accused. The findings demonstrate that autobiographical memories are highly malleable and that individuals assigned to the roles of “complainant” and “accused” are equally susceptible to post-event misinformation. This equality in memory fallibility persists even when the misinformation is designed to be compatible with their respective accounts. These results have profound implications for achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by highlighting the need for unbiased, evidence-based practices within the judicial system, and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) by challenging gendered stereotypes that can lead to inequitable treatment in sexual assault cases. The report concludes that expert testimony in legal settings must acknowledge the universal nature of memory distortion to ensure fair and just outcomes for all parties.

1. Introduction: Memory Fallibility and the Pursuit of Justice

The reliability of memory is a cornerstone of the judicial system, yet it is well-established that memory is reconstructive and prone to distortion. Post-event misinformation can significantly alter an individual’s recollection of an event, a phenomenon with critical consequences for legal proceedings. This research directly addresses the application of memory science within the justice system, a key component of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which aims to promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all.

In cases of alleged sexual assault, particularly “he said, she said” scenarios lacking physical evidence or witnesses, the conflicting memories of the parties involved are central. Historically, and in practice, the focus of memory-related scrutiny often falls disproportionately on the complainant. This imbalance can undermine the principles of fair justice and reflects broader societal biases, creating a barrier to achieving SDG 5: Gender Equality. By perpetuating the unfounded assumption that a complainant’s memory is uniquely fragile, the judicial process itself can become a site of secondary victimization and gender-based discrimination. This report examines the empirical basis for this differential scrutiny by directly comparing the susceptibility of complainants and the accused to memory distortion.

2. Experimental Investigation Overview

2.1. Research Objective

The primary objective across three experiments was to determine if there is a difference in susceptibility to post-event misinformation between individuals assigned the role of a complainant and those assigned the role of the accused in a simulated sexual assault case.

2.2. Methodology

1. Stimulus: Participants (Total N = 1341) viewed a first-person perspective video depicting a date, culminating in a screen text stating that the participant and their date went home and had sex.
2. Role Assignment: After viewing the video, participants were randomly assigned to one of two roles:
   • The Complainant: Informed that they had filed a sexual assault charge against their date, alleging lack of consent.
   • The Accused: Informed that their date had filed a sexual assault charge against them, which they knew to be false.
3. Misinformation Exposure: Participants were presented with “witness statements” containing a mixture of neutral information and subtle misinformation about details from the video.
   • Study 1: Used neutral misinformation items.
   • Studies 2 & 3: Used misinformation items specifically designed to be compatible with either the complainant’s account (making the date’s actions seem more incriminating) or the accused’s account (making the date’s actions seem more consensual).
4. Memory Test: Participants completed a memory questionnaire about the events in the video. Their responses were coded for the presence of the misinformation they had been exposed to.

3. Key Findings

The results of the three studies were consistent and conclusive:

• Significant Misinformation Effect: Across all studies, participants frequently incorporated false details from the witness statements into their memory of the event.
• No Difference Between Roles: There was no statistically significant difference in the susceptibility to misinformation between participants in the complainant and accused roles. Both groups were equally likely to form false memories.
• No Effect of Misinformation Compatibility: In Studies 2 and 3, participants were equally likely to accept misinformation regardless of whether it supported their assigned role (complainant or accused). Awareness of their role did not increase their motivation to accept compatible misinformation.

4. Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

4.1. Advancing SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The findings directly support the objectives of SDG 16, which calls for building effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

• Promoting Equal Access to Justice (Target 16.3): The evidence that memory fallibility is not exclusive to one party in a dispute underscores the need for judicial procedures that treat all testimony with the same evidence-based standard. By debunking the myth that complainants are uniquely unreliable, this research advocates for a more equitable process where the memories of both the accused and the complainant are evaluated on equal terms.
• Strengthening Institutions: For judicial systems to be considered just and effective, they must operate on sound scientific principles. This report urges that expert witnesses, lawyers, and judges integrate the understanding that memory distortion is a universal human phenomenon. This contributes to building stronger, more accountable institutions that are less susceptible to bias and popular misconceptions.

4.2. Supporting SDG 5: Gender Equality

This research provides critical evidence for advancing SDG 5 by challenging systemic biases that disadvantage women in the justice system.

• Eliminating Discrimination and Violence (Targets 5.1 & 5.2): In sexual assault cases, the complainant is often a woman, and skepticism about her memory is frequently rooted in gendered stereotypes about emotion, trauma, and credibility. By demonstrating that the accused is just as likely to have a distorted memory, this research helps dismantle a key tool used to undermine complainants’ testimony. This fosters a judicial environment where victims of sexual violence can expect a fairer hearing, which is a crucial step in ending all forms of discrimination and violence against women.
• Ensuring Equal Participation: A fair and unbiased justice system encourages fuller participation from all members of society. When victims believe they will be treated equitably, they are more likely to report crimes and engage with the legal process, a vital component of ensuring women’s full and effective participation in public life.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

The consistent finding across three robust experiments is that individuals in the roles of complainant and accused are equally vulnerable to memory distortion from post-event misinformation. The common judicial practice and narrative of focusing skepticism on the complainant’s memory is not supported by scientific evidence. This imbalance risks perpetuating miscarriages of justice and undermines global efforts to achieve gender equality and strengthen institutions.

To align judicial practices with scientific evidence and advance the Sustainable Development Goals, the following is recommended:

• Expert witnesses providing testimony on memory should explicitly state that memory fallibility is a universal cognitive phenomenon affecting all individuals, including both complainants and the accused.
• Judicial training programs should incorporate modern memory science to ensure that judges and lawyers understand that memory distortion is not a sign of dishonesty and affects all parties in a legal dispute.
• Legal arguments and judicial considerations should move away from biased scrutiny of a single party’s memory and toward an evidence-based evaluation of all testimony.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article is fundamentally about the functioning of the justice system. It directly addresses the “implications for justice and the judicial system,” the risk of “miscarriages of justice,” and the role of “expert witnesses” in “courtroom settings.” The central aim is to ensure a fairer judicial process by correcting a common bias in how memory evidence is treated, thus promoting stronger, more equitable institutions.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • The article’s focus is on sexual assault cases, which are a form of gender-based violence. It explicitly discusses how “cultural stereotypes regarding sexual assault are much more likely to include a male perpetrator and a female victim.” It highlights a potential bias where the memory of the complainant (often a woman) is scrutinized more heavily than that of the accused, stating, “it often appears that it is the putative victim—and their memory—that is on trial.” This connects directly to ending discrimination and violence against women.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • While a secondary theme, the article deals with sexual assault, an act of violence with severe consequences for mental and physical well-being. The text mentions how memory can be “distorted by trauma” and includes a content warning for participants about the study’s distressing topic. Ensuring a fair justice process is crucial for the psychological recovery and well-being of all parties involved.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

   • The article’s main conclusion that “the complainant and accused in a ‘he said, she said’ case are equally likely to suffer from memory distortion” is a direct challenge to practices that may undermine equal access to justice. By urging expert witnesses to apply the science of memory fallibility equally to both parties, the research promotes a more balanced and fair application of the rule of law.

2. Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres… including sexual and other types of exploitation.

   • The entire experimental framework is built around a scenario of “alleged sexual assault.” The research seeks to improve how the justice system handles these specific cases of violence, which disproportionately affect women. By addressing biases that could hinder justice for victims, the study contributes to efforts to eliminate this form of violence.

3. Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

   • Sexual assault is the specific form of violence that the article investigates. A fair and effective justice system is a key deterrent and response mechanism to violence. By improving the evidentiary standards and reducing biases in sexual assault trials, the research contributes to the broader goal of reducing such violence.

4. Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat… crime.

   • The article’s recommendation to “urge expert witnesses to take this into account when providing testimony” is a direct call to strengthen the practices within the judicial system (a key national institution). Improving how expert evidence is presented and evaluated makes the institution more effective and just in combating crime.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Rate of Misinformation Acceptance

   • The study’s primary dependent variable is the “misinformation score,” which measures the “susceptibility to post-event misinformation.” This is a direct, quantifiable indicator of memory fallibility. The finding that there was “no difference in the susceptibility of participants in the complainant and accused roles” provides a baseline for arguing that this indicator should be considered equally for all parties in a legal proceeding.

2. Balance of Expert Witness Testimony

   • The article implies an indicator by highlighting an existing imbalance: “if a memory expert is called to give expert witness testimony, it is far more likely that they will have been called on behalf of the defendant, not the prosecution.” Progress toward Target 16.3 could be measured by tracking the proportion of trials where expert testimony on memory fallibility is presented for both the complainant and the accused, or in a neutral, educational capacity for the court.

3. Influence of Gender Stereotypes on Misinformation Reporting

   • The study analyzed the “influence of date gender” and found in Study 2 that participants reported more misinformation in line with gender stereotypes (e.g., “participants in the complainant condition tended to report more misinformation about Samuel [the male date] than about Jessica”). This suggests an indicator for Target 5.2 would be the analysis of misinformation acceptance or judicial outcomes in real cases, disaggregated by the gender of the parties, to measure and correct for the influence of “deeply embedded social stereotypes regarding sexual assault.”

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: nature.com