False Memories: "It was HIM!"

Have you ever found yourself in an argument with someone else over “what really happened” when telling the details of a specific event? You were likely so confident in your assertions that there was no possibility that you could be wrong, only to find out that you were. This is known as False Memory: the psychological phenomenon in which a person recalls something that did not occur. Everyone, even the smartest of academics, are susceptible to this memory error. We’re all human after all.

You’re probably thinking: how does this even happen? Aren’t memories just stored in a metaphorical box in our brain? Well, no. When retrieving the details to a specific event our brains are recreating that memory, and this happens every time you access that memory. You are subconsciously reliving the event. There are several memory errors, or sins as put by Daniel Schacter, but we will come back to those in a later blog update.

This malleability of our cognitive processes can have consequences for others too. Could you believe that one woman’s false identification paired with heavy reinforcement form law enforcement resulted in a man spending a decade in prison for a crime he did not commit. Now, before we get into details, let us understand that she is not to blame. We are simply looking at how fickle our brains can be when paired with repeated reinforcement.

In 1984, Ms. Jennifer Thompson-Cannino of Burlington, North Carolina was sexually assaulted in her apartment by a man she would later identify as Ronald Cotton. During the encounter (to put it lightly) she swore to herself that she would see her attacker sent to prison if she survived, so she spent every moment memorizing the details of the man’s face. After escaping from her home, Thompson worked with police to draw a composite of her alleged rapist. From the composite drawing, police gathered 6 pictures of potential suspects and showed them to her all at once. After narrowing it down to two, she determined that the picture of Ronald Cotton was the man who had raped her. This is where the first instance of reinforcement occurred, the police did not leave open the option that the suspect may not be in one of those pictures. Moreover, the detective on the case told Ms. Thompson that she “did great,” eluding to the idea that there was a right answer. Soon after, she was asked to select from a lineup of 7 men where she would pick Ronald Cotton again with questionable uncertainty. However, investigators congratulated her again in saying that this was the person she picked form the photo lineup. At this point, Ms. Thompson was positive that she knew who had raped her that night, so it comes as no surprise that she pointed Mr. Cotton out with unwavering certainty during the trial. He was sentenced to life in prison, and she left court feeling vindicated.

Years later, Ronald Cotton heard rumors about a new inmate that was bragging about him taking the fall, for he (the new inmate) had been the one to sexually assault Ms. Thompson. A retrial was called, and even then, when Thompson was face to face with both men she was absolute in believing that Cotton was her perpetrator. Shockingly enough, she is reported saying that she had no idea who the other man was. Finally, after 10 years and the invention of DNA testing, Ronald Cotton would be exonerated and the rumors about the new inmate would prove to be true.

So, the next time you are so sure of yourself, do consider the reality that you might be remembering something falsely.

If you are interested in the complete details of this story and what came after, you can find them in the book Picking Cotton, by none other than Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson-Cannino.