This article offers an exhaustive review on the evaluation of child testimony in children under six years of age, with special emphasis on the formation of false memories and the implantation of false memories. The neuropsychological basis of episodic memory in early childhood is analyzed, highlighting the cognitive immaturity and high suggestibility that characterize this age group. The mechanisms that favor the creation of false memories, as well as the vulnerability factors typical of early childhood, are discussed. It also examines the processes of memory implantation, the influence of suggestion, leading questions and external misinformation, and the crucial role played by family, interviewers and social context in shaping children's testimony.

The article also reviews empirical evidence, from classic experiments to recent research, demonstrating the malleability of infant memory and the methodological challenges facing research in this area. Legal and ethical implications arising from the presence of false memories are addressed, as well as the difficulties inherent in obtaining reliable testimony. Finally, a detailed analysis of the recommended forensic methodology for the evaluation of child testimony is presented, including structured interviews, psychometric testing, behavioral observation, and multidisciplinary integration of results.

It concludes with recommendations for forensic practice, specialized expert witness training, and the need for public policies to ensure the protection of children's rights and the reliability of judicial processes. Future research should advance in the improvement of tools and protocols adapted to cultural diversity and the particularities of child development.

Keywords: child testimony, false memories, memory implantation, forensic evaluation, episodic memory, child suggestibility

Episodic memory is an essential component of human memory, responsible for storing and retrieving personal experiences framed in a particular spatio-temporal context. This type of memory allows people to recall specific events, including details about the place, time and circumstances in which they occurred, as well as associated emotions and thoughts.^1,2 In childhood, and especially in children under six years of age, episodic memory is in full development, which implies important limitations in children's ability to recall, organize and communicate past experiences accurately and coherently.^3,4

In the field of forensic psychology, the evaluation of child testimony acquires particular relevance, since in numerous judicial proceedings, the child's account constitutes the main, and even the only, source of evidence about the facts under investigation.³ However, the neuropsychological immaturity and vulnerability of children's memory pose significant challenges for obtaining reliable testimony and for the correct interpretation of the memories manifested by children.^5,6 Added to this is the susceptibility of minors to suggestion, confusion between real and imagined memories, and the possibility of false memory formation, phenomena that can compromise the validity of testimony and have far-reaching legal and social consequences.^7,8

Relevance of infant memory in forensic psychology

The assessment of childhood memory in forensic contexts is a topic of utmost importance due to several fundamental reasons. First, episodic memory is the basis on which the child's ability to give evidence about past events is sustained, allowing to place events in a specific spatiotemporal framework.^1,3 However, the maturation of brain structures involved in episodic memory, such as the temporal lobe and hippocampus, is not completed until later stages of infancy, limiting the ability of children under six years of age to archive and retrieve temporal and spatial cues to episodes experienced.^4,9

This immaturity translates into accounts that may lack consistency, precision and coherence, making it difficult to distinguish between different episodes and to establish the order in which events occurred.^3,5 In addition, young children present difficulties in discriminating between real and imagined memories, which may lead to the mixing of details of different events or the incorporation of information suggested by third parties.^7,8 In judicial contexts, where the child's statement may be the only evidence available, these limitations take on a critical dimension, as the accuracy and credibility of the testimony may determine the outcome of the criminal proceedings.^3,6

On the other hand, the vulnerability of children's memory to suggestion and the implantation of false memories is a phenomenon widely documented in the scientific literature.^7,8 Children under the age of six are particularly susceptible to the influence of directed questions, adult comments, or information from external sources, which can result in the formation of inaccurate or completely fictitious memories.^10,11 This susceptibility poses serious ethical and methodological challenges for professionals in charge of assessing child testimony, who must adopt rigorous strategies to minimize the risks of distortion and ensure the protection of children's rights.⁶

Finally, obtaining reliable testimony in children under six years of age requires a thorough understanding of the neuropsychological, linguistic, and emotional processes underlying children's memory, as well as the use of interview techniques adapted to children's developmental characteristics.^3,5 The training and specialization of forensic experts in these areas is essential to ensure the scientific validity of the assessments and to avoid secondary victimization of minors involved in judicial proceedings.⁶

Objectives and justification of the study

The present article aims to analyze in depth the neuropsychological, forensic and methodological processes related to episodic memory and the formation of false memories in children under six years of age, with special attention to the implications that these phenomena have on the elicitation and assessment of child testimony in judicial contexts.

To this end, the following specific objectives are addressed:

1. Describe brain development and maturation of episodic memory in early childhood, identifying the limitations inherent to this developmental stage.^4,9
2. To analyze the mechanisms of false memory formation and the susceptibility of young children to the implantation of suggested or fictitious memories.^7,8
3. Review the available empirical evidence on the accuracy and reliability of child testimony in children under the age of six, highlighting key vulnerability factors and methodological challenges associated with forensic assessment.^5,6
4. To examine the legal, ethical, and social implications arising from the use of child testimony as evidence in legal proceedings, as well as recommended strategies and protocols to minimize the risks of distortion and protect the rights of the child.^3,6

The rationale for this study lies in the need to provide forensic psychology, law and child protection professionals with an updated and scientifically grounded view on the limits and possibilities of infant memory in early childhood. Given the importance acquired by the testimony of minors in the investigation and prosecution of crimes, especially in cases of child sexual abuse where there is often no other evidence, it is essential to know the characteristics, limitations and risks associated with episodic memory and the formation of false memories in this population.^3,7

Likewise, the article aims to contribute to the development of good practices in the forensic evaluation of children's testimony, promoting the use of techniques and procedures adapted to the evolutionary characteristics of children and encouraging specialized training of the experts in charge of this work.⁶ Only through a rigorous and ethical approach will it be possible to guarantee the protection of children's rights and the reliability of legal proceedings in which their testimony is decisive.

Neuropsychological bases of episodic memory in early childhood

Episodic memory constitutes the system responsible for encoding, storing and retrieving unique personal experiences, situated in a specific spatial and temporal context.^2,12 In early childhood, this type of memory is in full development, which implies that children under six years of age present particular neuropsychological and cognitive characteristics that influence the way they process and recall lived events. Understanding the neurobiological and developmental underpinnings of episodic memory is essential for interpreting the quality and reliability of children's memories, especially in forensic contexts where the accuracy of testimony can be determinative. This section explores brain development and memory maturation, the limitations associated with infantile amnesia, and the fundamental differences between infantile and adult episodic memory, providing a conceptual framework for the analysis of memory in early childhood.

Brain development and memory maturation

The development of episodic memory in early childhood is intrinsically linked to the maturation of key brain structures, primarily the hippocampus and associated cortical regions. Traditionally, the inability of adults to recall early life events, a phenomenon known as infantile amnesia, has been considered to be due to the immaturity of the hippocampus, a fundamental structure for the formation and retrieval of episodic memories.^12,13 However, recent research has challenged this perspective, providing evidence that even infants as young as 12 months can encode episodic memories, although their later access to these memories is limited.¹³

The hippocampus, located in the medial temporal lobe, is essential for episodic memory consolidation. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have shown that hippocampal activity in infants is increased during image recognition tasks, and that this activity predicts infants' later ability to recognize previously presented stimuli.^12,13 These results suggest that the basic neural machinery for encoding episodic memories is present from the first year of life, although the consolidation and retrieval of these memories depend on brain processes that continue to mature during childhood and adolescence.⁹

The development of episodic memory also involves interaction with other brain areas, such as the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for temporal organization and contextualization of memories, as well as inhibition of irrelevant information.⁹ The maturation of these cortical regions, together with the progressive myelination of neural pathways, facilitates the integration of sensory, emotional and contextual information that characterizes episodic memories.¹²

In addition, neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus, a process that remains active during childhood, contributes to brain plasticity and the ability to form new memories from personal experiences.¹²

However, prolonged cell formation and neuronal migration in this region may explain why long-term retention and consolidation of memories are gradual processes in early life.

On the other hand, statistical learning-the ability to extract patterns and regularities from the environment-appears earlier than episodic memory and also depends on the hippocampus, although it uses different neural circuits.¹³ This type of learning is fundamental for the development of language and other cognitive skills, and its early appearance suggests that the hippocampus fulfills multiple functions from very early stages of development.

In summary, the maturation of episodic memory in early childhood is the result of the interaction between early hippocampal activation, the progressive specialization of the prefrontal cortex and the consolidation of neural networks that allow the integration of complex information. Although infants can encode episodic memories from the first year of life, the ability to consolidate, retrieve and verbalize these memories develops gradually and depends on the maturation of interconnected brain systems.^8,12

Infantile amnesia and limitations in the encoding and retrieval of memories

Infantile amnesia is defined as the inability of adults to recall autobiographical events that occurred in the first years of life, usually before the age of three or four.^4,13 It was long assumed that this amnesia was due to the inability of the infant brain to encode episodic memories, as a consequence of the immaturity of the hippocampus and associated cortical connections.¹² However, recent evidence suggests that infants can indeed encode and store memories, although the difficulty lies in the processes of consolidation and, especially, retrieval of these memories later in life.¹³

Encoding is the process by which sensory experiences are transformed into mnestic traces (engrams) in the hippocampus. These imprints must be consolidated through interaction with other brain regions, a process that occurs primarily during sleep and can last for days or weeks.¹³ Although these memories can persist for years, their retrieval depends on the availability of contextual cues and the maturation of memory retrieval systems, which involve both the hippocampus and the prefrontal cortex.⁹

Infantile amnesia, therefore, is not explained solely by the inability to encode memories, but by the difficulty to consolidate them in a stable manner and, above all, to retrieve them later. This hypothesis is reinforced by animal studies, which have shown that memories formed during childhood can persist in the adult brain, even if they are inaccessible without direct stimulation of engrams or the presence of specific reminder cues.¹³

In young children, retrieval of episodic memories is limited by several factors. First, the lack of sufficiently developed language hinders the verbalization and narrative organization of past experiences, which reduces the likelihood that these memories will be accessible in the future.^4,12 Second, the ability to place events in a coherent temporal and spatial framework is still incipient in early childhood, which contributes to the fragmentation and confusion of memories.⁹

Another important limitation is retroactive interference, i.e., the tendency of new memories to interfere with the retrieval of old memories, a phenomenon that is especially pronounced during periods of rapid cognitive and linguistic development.⁴ In addition, high brain plasticity in childhood, although conducive to learning and adaptation, may also facilitate the modification or forgetting of previously stored memories.

In sum, infant amnesia results from a combination of neurobiological, cognitive, and linguistic factors that affect the consolidation and retrieval of episodic memories. Although infants can encode experiences, the future accessibility of these memories depends on the maturation of the brain systems involved, language development, and the availability of contextual cues that facilitate retrieval.^12,13

Differences between childhood and adult episodic memory

Episodic memory in childhood differs significantly from episodic memory in adulthood, both in terms of capacity and in terms of the quality and organization of memories. In adults, episodic memory is characterized by the ability to recall specific events with precise contextual details, including information about the "what," "when," and "where" of the event, as well as the ability to reflect on the personal meaning of the experience.^2,9

In contrast, in children under six years of age, episodic memory is more fragmentary and less elaborated. Although young children can recall recent events, their accounts often lack precise temporal and spatial details, and the integration of emotional or reflective information is limited.^4,12 This difference is due, in part, to the immaturity of brain regions responsible for the organization and contextualization of memories, especially the prefrontal cortex.⁹

In addition, young children present a greater vulnerability to interference and external suggestion, which may result in the mixing of real and imagined memories or the incorporation of information suggested by adults.^7,8

Children's episodic memory is therefore more malleable and susceptible to distortion, a phenomenon that has important implications in forensic and educational contexts.

Another relevant difference is the reliance on language for the consolidation and retrieval of episodic memories. In early childhood, limited linguistic capacity hinders the narrative elaboration of experiences, reducing the likelihood that memories will be accessible in the future.^4,12 In adults, on the other hand, the ability to verbalize and organize memories in the form of coherent narratives facilitates their consolidation and retrieval.

Finally, the flexibility of episodic memory, understood as the ability to recombine elements of past experiences to imagine future situations or solve problems, is limited in infancy and develops progressively during childhood and adolescence.^4,9 This flexibility is fundamental for adaptation to the environment and behavioral planning, and its development is associated with the maturation of brain networks that integrate the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex.

In conclusion, infant episodic memory differs from adult episodic memory in terms of capacity for encoding, consolidation, retrieval and narrative organization of memories. These differences reflect the progressive maturation of the brain structures involved and the influence of linguistic, emotional and contextual factors on the development of autobiographical memory.^9,12

False memories in children under six years of age

The phenomenon of false memories in childhood has been the subject of intense scrutiny in cognitive and forensic psychology, given its relevance to the reliability of child testimony. Children under the age of six, due to the immaturity of their memory systems and their high suggestibility, are especially prone to recall events that never occurred or to distort details of real experiences.^8,14 Research has shown that false memories can arise from both internal processes, such as confusion between imagination and reality, and external influences, such as suggestive questions or misinformation provided by adults. Understanding the types of false memories, the mechanisms that generate them, and the vulnerability factors specific to early childhood is critical for assessing the validity of child testimony and for designing intervention strategies to minimize the risk of distortion in judicial contexts.^7,10

Definition and types of false memories

False memories are defined as the evocation of events or details that did not actually occur, or the distortion of experienced events, so that the person remembers them inaccurately or completely fictitiously.¹⁵ In childhood, and especially in children under six years of age, these phenomena become particularly relevant due to the immaturity of the memory systems and the high susceptibility to external influence.¹⁴

There are different types of false memories:

1. Completely invented memories: the child remembers an event that never happened, such as having visited a non-existent place or having lived a fictitious experience.⁸
2. Distorted memories: The child remembers a real event, but with altered details, such as confusing the people involved, the place, the time or the sequence of events.¹⁴
3. Implanted memories: The child incorporates information suggested by adults, media or peers into his or her memory, coming to believe that he or she personally experienced it.¹⁵
4. Confusion of sources: The child mixes information from different sources (reality, imagination, other people's stories) and cannot distinguish the origin of each remembered fragment.¹⁶

These types of false memories can coexist and overlap, making it difficult to identify the boundaries between real and imagined experience, especially at early ages.

Mechanisms of false memory formation in childhood

The formation of false memories in young children is a multifactorial process involving the interaction of cognitive, social and contextual variables. Among the most relevant mechanisms are:

1. External suggestion: exposure to suggestive, repetitive, or directive questions by adults may induce the child to recall facts that did not occur or to modify details of real events.¹⁰ For example, repeatedly asking "Did someone hurt you?" may lead the child to construct a fictitious account to meet the adult's expectations.
2. Disinformation effect: When children receive erroneous or contradictory information after an event, they may incorporate those data into their original memory, generating a distorted memory.¹¹
3. Guided imagining: Inviting the child to imagine hypothetical situations may increase the likelihood that he or she will later confuse imagination with reality, especially if the exercise is repeated several times.¹⁷
4. Repetition and reconstruction: Children's memory is reconstructive, meaning that each time the child retells an event, he or she may modify details, incorporate new information, or reinforce fictitious elements, thus consolidating the false memory.¹⁴
5. Source confusion: Young children have difficulty distinguishing between experienced events, dreams, heard accounts, or information seen in media, which facilitates the mixing of sources and the creation of erroneous memories.¹⁶
6. Emotional influence: Intense emotions, such as fear or anxiety, can distort the perception and recall of events, increasing the likelihood of generating false memories.¹⁸

These mechanisms interact and enhance each other, especially in contexts of high emotional pressure or when the child is exposed to authoritative adults.¹⁰

Vulnerability factors in early childhood

Early childhood is a period particularly sensitive to the formation of false memories due to a number of vulnerability factors:

1. Neuropsychological immaturity: incomplete development of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex limits children's ability to encode, consolidate, and retrieve memories in an accurate and organized manner.⁹
2. Limited linguistic development: Restrictions in vocabulary and the ability to structure narratives hinder the elaboration and retrieval of complex memories, increasing susceptibility to external influence.⁴
3. Difficulty discriminating sources: Young children present limitations in source memory, i.e., in the ability to identify the origin of remembered information, which facilitates the mixing of real and fictitious memories.¹⁶
4. High suggestibility: Children under six years of age are especially sensitive to the authority and expectations of adults, which makes them more likely to accept suggested information and incorporate it into their memory.¹⁰
5. Fragmentary processing of experience: The tendency to remember isolated fragments of events, instead of complete and coherent sequences, increases the probability of distortion and erroneous reconstruction of facts.⁴
6. Influence of the social and family context: pressure from family members, interviewers or the environment can reinforce the creation and consolidation of false memories, especially when the child's account is validated or rewarded.⁸

These factors make children in early childhood particularly vulnerable to the formation of false memories, which poses significant challenges for the evaluation and assessment of their testimony in forensic and judicial contexts.

Memory implantation and child suggestibility

Memory implantation and suggestibility are two of the main challenges in eliciting and assessing child testimony, especially in children under six years of age. Numerous studies have evidenced that young children can come to recall fictitious events with conviction when exposed to suggested information or adult-directed questions.^8,15 This phenomenon highlights the vulnerability of children's memory to the influence of the social environment, interviewer authority, and family dynamics. Analyzing the processes of memory implantation, the influence of suggestion and misinformation, as well as the role of the family and the social context, is essential to understand the risks associated with the forensic evaluation of child testimony and to establish protocols that ensure the protection of the child's rights and the reliability of the information obtained.^7,19

Processes of memory implantation in children

Memory implantation in children is a phenomenon by which a child comes to remember with conviction events that never occurred, often as a result of external influence, suggestion, or imaginative reconstruction. This process is not just an isolated error, but is supported by cognitive and sociocultural mechanisms that affect the way children encode, store, and retrieve information.²⁰ This process has been extensively studied in experimental psychology, demonstrating that children's memory is especially vulnerable to the creation of false memories from external or suggested information.^8,15 Similarly, it has been found that this vulnerability extended to the implantation of memories due to their limited ability to serialize events, discriminate sources of information, and understand the nature of their own emotions.^21,22

One of the central mechanisms in the implantation of memories is the "rehearsal" or mental repetition of a suggested event. When a child is invited to repeatedly imagine an event, the familiarity and vividness of the mental imagery can cause the event to be cemented as a real memory, even though it never happened.¹⁵ This process is enhanced when the suggested information comes from authority figures, such as parents, therapists, or interviewers, who may consciously or unconsciously reinforce the fictional narrative through validation and repetition.^23,24 The implementation process can be divided into several phases:

1. Suggestion exposure: The child receives information about a nonexistent event, either through questions, stories, or adult comments.
2. Mental construction: The child imagines the suggested event, integrating contextual and emotional details, which facilitates the consolidation of the fictional memory.
3. Consolidation and reaffirmation: Through repetition, narration and adult validation, the memory is consolidated and acquires an autobiographical character, becoming indistinguishable from a real memory.^15,24

In addition, memory implantation is facilitated when the original memory is weak or inaccessible, allowing new information, even if incorrect, to be integrated into long-term memory.¹⁴ Guided imagery techniques, narrative reconstruction and exposure to detailed verbal descriptions are methods that have been shown to be effective in implanting false memories in experimental and therapeutic contexts.^15,25

At the neurobiological level, the vulnerability of minors to memory implantation is related to the incomplete development of brain structures such as the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex, which are responsible for the consolidation, retrieval and discrimination of information sources.²⁰ The integration of sensory, emotional and representational information in infancy is limited, which favors fragmentation and erroneous reconstruction of experiences.²²

Classic studies have shown that, after several interviews in which a fictitious event is suggested (e.g., getting lost in a shopping mall), a significant percentage of children come to accept and detail that event as if they had really lived it.^8,23 This phenomenon is more frequent in children under six years of age, due to the immaturity of their cognitive control mechanisms and the tendency to accept information coming from authority figures.

Summarizing what we have seen so far, memory implantation processes in children are the result of the interaction between external suggestion, imaginative repetition, social validation and the neuropsychological limitations of childhood. This phenomenon has profound implications for forensic evaluation, as it can compromise the reliability of child testimony and increase the risk of miscarriage of justice.

Influence of suggestion, leading questions and external misinformation

Suggestion is one of the most powerful factors in the formation of implanted memories in childhood. It refers to the influence exerted by the expectations, beliefs, or statements of others on the child's memory, especially when they come from significant adults.¹⁰

1. Directed questions: Questions that contain implicit information or that presuppose the occurrence of an event may induce the child to accept and remember nonexistent events. For example, asking "What clothes was the man who hit you wearing?" presupposes that there was an aggression, which may lead the child to generate fictitious details.¹¹
2. Repetition of questions: Repeating questions about the same event increases the likelihood that the child will modify his or her answer to please the interviewer or because he or she assumes that his or her initial answer was incorrect.²⁶
3. External misinformation: Misinformation provided after an event may be incorporated into the original memory, a phenomenon known as the "misinformation effect". Children are particularly vulnerable to this effect, integrating false details into their accounts.^8,11

Susceptibility to suggestion and misinformation is greater in young children because of their limited ability to discriminate the source of information and their tendency to trust adults.¹⁰

Role of the family, interviewers and social context

The social environment plays a key role in the implantation of memories and child suggestibility. Family, interviewers, and the context in which testimony is elicited can have a decisive influence on the formation and consolidation of false memories.⁷

1. Family: Parents and relatives may intentionally or unintentionally suggest information to the child through questions, comments, or stories. Validation and reinforcement of certain accounts may consolidate fictitious memories, especially if the child perceives that his or her testimony is socially desired or rewarded.²⁷
2. Interviewers: The training, attitude and techniques used by the interviewers are determinant. Poorly structured interviews, suggestive questions or pressure to obtain answers can increase the rate of false memories.^10,26 The use of structured protocols, such as the Cognitive Interview or the NICHD Protocol, has been shown to reduce suggestibility and improve the quality of child testimony.¹⁹
3. Social context: Emotional climate and social expectations can influence a child's memory. In situations of high emotional pressure or when there is a dominant narrative in the environment (e.g., in cases of suspected abuse), children may adapt their accounts to conform to group expectations.⁷

Ultimately, the implantation of memories in childhood is a complex process that depends on the interaction between the cognitive characteristics of the child and the influences of the social and communicative environment. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for forensic assessment and for the design of strategies to minimize the risk of distortion in child testimony.

Empirical studies and scientific evidence

The study of false memories and the implantation of fictitious memories in childhood has been one of the most dynamic and relevant fields of cognitive and forensic psychology in recent decades. Through controlled experiments and field studies, researchers have succeeded in demonstrating not only the malleability of childhood memory, but also the factors that make it especially vulnerable to distortion and suggestion. This section examines the classic experiments that laid the foundation for current knowledge, reviews recent research focusing on preschool children, and discusses the methodological limitations and challenges facing research in this area, with particular attention to the applicability of findings in judicial and clinical contexts.

Classic false memory and implantation experiments

Pioneering experiments on memory implantation and the generation of false memories have been fundamental to understanding the vulnerability of human memory, especially in childhood. One of the most influential investigations was conducted by Elizabeth Loftus and Jacqueline Pickrell, who developed the well-known "lost at the mall" paradigm.²⁸ In this experiment, participants were presented with three true stories from their childhood, obtained from family members, and one false story claiming that, as children, they had been lost in a shopping mall and an old woman had helped them. After several interviews, approximately 25-29% of the participants accepted this false event as their own, even going so far as to add emotional details and descriptions of the supposed helper.

Other studies replicated and extended these findings. Hyman, Husband, and Billings²⁴ asked college students to recall childhood experiences recounted by their parents, including a fake story such as an overnight hospitalization or a birthday party with clowns and pizza. Although participants initially denied recalling the fictitious event, after successive interviews, about 20% claimed to have memories, some even with specific details about the alleged experience.

In addition, Loftus and Palmer²⁹ demonstrated how the formulation of questions can alter memories. In their famous experiment on traffic accidents, participants watched a video of a collision and were then asked about the speed of the cars using different verbs ("contact," "crash," "collide," "crash"). The responses varied significantly depending on the verb used, and some even remembered non-existent details, such as broken glass, simply because of the influence of the language used.

These experiments showed that memory is not a faithful recording of reality, but a reconstructive process, vulnerable to suggestion, misinformation and repetition. The ease with which false memories can be implanted, especially in children and adolescents, has had profound implications for the psychology of testimony and forensic practice.¹⁵

Recent research on preschool children

In recent years, research on false memories in preschool children has intensified, using more sophisticated methodologies and more representative samples. Julia Shaw³⁰ conducted a study in which, using information provided by parents and guided imagery exercises, she had 70% of participants develop false memories about crimes they never committed or experiences they never lived through. The children and young people described these fictitious events in rich detail, emotions, and sensations, underscoring the ease with which autobiographical memory can be manipulated, even in people with good memories.^30–32

Other research has shown that young children are especially prone to accept information suggested by adults, particularly when it comes from authority figures or is presented in an emotionally charged context. For example, Gilabert Girón's³³ work confirms that minors can generate false memories and offer false information convincingly, even in structured interviews, which poses significant challenges for obtaining reliable testimony in court proceedings.

In addition, recent studies have shown that corroboration of an event by family members or repeated exposure to accounts of a non-existent event significantly increase the likelihood that the child will accept it as his or her own.^24,28,34 The integration of visual information, such as manipulated photographs, also increases vividness and confidence in false memories, a phenomenon that has been replicated in both experimental and everyday contexts.³⁴

These findings confirm that infant memory is highly malleable and that memory implantation can occur with relative ease, especially at early ages and under conditions of suggestion or social pressure.

Methodological limitations and research challenges

Despite significant advances in the understanding of false memories, research in this field faces important methodological limitations and ethical challenges. One of the main difficulties lies in the distinction between genuinely implanted memories and distorted memories of similar events or foreign experiences that have been incorporated into personal memory.^14,20,24 Many of the experimental paradigms use plausible or common events, which may facilitate confounding between imagination and actual experience.

Another limitation is the generalization of experimental results to the real world. Laboratory studies often use controlled environments and emotionally neutral events, whereas forensic contexts involve highly emotionally charged situations and social pressure, factors that may differentially influence the formation and consolidation of false memories.¹⁵ In addition, there is a risk that repeated interviews or repeated exposure to suggestive questions may artificially increase the rate of false memories in experiments, without necessarily reflecting the dynamics of well-conducted forensic interviews.

The phenomenon of infantile amnesia and the difficulty in verifying the authenticity of early memories also complicate the interpretation of results. Autobiographical memory from early life is fragmentary and susceptible to the influence of family stories, photographs, and overheard anecdotes, which can lead to the unintentional creation of fictitious memories.^24,28,34

Finally, the ethical challenges associated with research with minors require a balance between obtaining relevant data and protecting the psychological well-being of participants. Researchers must avoid procedures that may cause confusion, distress, or emotional harm to children, and always ensure informed consent and confidentiality.

Although empirical evidence on the implantation of false memories in childhood is robust, research must move toward the development of more ecologically and ethically responsible methodologies capable of capturing the complexity of children's memory in natural and judicial contexts.

Implications for the psychology of testimony

The psychology of child testimony addresses the challenges and responsibilities associated with the assessment of children's accounts in judicial and expert contexts. The presence of false memories, the malleability of memory, and the influence of social and contextual factors make the elicitation and analysis of child testimony a complex task of great legal and ethical significance. This section examines the consequences that false memories can have on legal proceedings, the difficulties inherent in obtaining reliable testimony from children under six years of age, and the strategies and protocols developed to minimize the risks of distortion. Understanding these implications is essential to protect the rights of children and ensure justice in proceedings where their testimony is crucial.^14,20,33

Legal and Ethical Consequences of False Memories in Minors

The presence of false memories in the testimony of minors has profound legal and ethical consequences. In the judicial arena, false memories can lead to the prosecution and conviction of innocent people, as well as the dismissal of truthful allegations, jeopardizing both the protection of victims and the guarantee of a fair trial for the accused.^20,33 The literature has documented cases in which the implantation of memories, either through inadequate therapeutic techniques or suggestive interviews, has generated serious personal and social damage. A paradigmatic example is the case of Nadean Cool, who, after the implantation of false memories during therapy, criminally sued his therapist and obtained compensation for moral damages.³⁵

From an ethical perspective, the manipulation or implantation of memories in children violates fundamental principles such as autonomy, dignity and the right to truth. Furthermore, the use of child testimonies without due methodological rigor can lead to the revictimization of the minor and the generation of a climate of distrust towards the judicial system.³³ Therefore, the psychology of testimony emphasizes the need for rigorous protocols and specialized training for professionals involved in obtaining and assessing child testimony.²⁰

Difficulties in obtaining reliable testimony

Obtaining reliable testimony in children under six years of age faces numerous challenges stemming from the malleable and reconstructive nature of children's memory. Young children exhibit high suggestibility, difficulty discriminating between real and imagined memories, and a tendency to please adults, which increases the risk of distortion.^20,33 In addition, emotional pressure, repetition of questions and exposure to misinformation can consolidate false memories, making it difficult to identify the truth in judicial contexts.¹⁴

The literature emphasizes that children's memory is not an exact reproduction of the facts, but a reconstruction influenced by internal (emotions, expectations, cognitive development) and external factors (suggestion, social context, interview techniques).³³ This complexity requires that professionals use validated techniques and avoid procedures that may increase distortion, such as closed, directive or repetitive questions.²⁰

Strategies and protocols to minimize risks of distortion

To minimize the risks of distortion in child testimony, the psychology of testimony has developed a series of strategies and protocols based on scientific evidence. Among the most relevant recommendations are:

1. Use of structured interviews and validated protocols: The use of protocols such as the NICHD Protocol or the Adapted Cognitive Interview for Children has been shown to reduce suggestibility and improve the quality and quantity of information obtained.³³
2. Specialized training of interviewers: It is essential that professionals have specific training in child development, memory and non-suggestive interviewing techniques.²⁰
3. Avoid suggestive and repetitive questions: Open-ended, neutral and non-directive questions favor more accurate accounts and decrease the likelihood of false memories.¹⁴
4. Triangulation of sources and external corroboration: Whenever possible, child testimony should be contrasted with other sources of information (physical evidence, adult testimony, documents) to increase the reliability of the conclusions.³³
5. Ethical supervision and review: The intervention of ethical committees and professional supervision are essential to ensure respect for the rights of the child and the quality of the evaluation.²⁰

The protection of children's rights and the reliability of judicial processes depend on the rigorous application of evidence-based protocols and the ethical commitment of the professionals involved in the collection and assessment of children's testimony.

Methodology in the forensic evaluation of child testimony

The forensic evaluation of child testimony constitutes one of the most delicate and complex tasks for legal and forensic psychology professionals. Obtaining reliable information about alleged criminal acts, especially in cases of child sexual abuse, depends to a large extent on methodological rigor and the application of validated scientific protocols. Children's memories are malleable and susceptible to suggestion, which makes it necessary to take extreme precautions to avoid contamination of the story and secondary victimization. This section addresses the importance of methodology in obtaining psychological data, the main assessment tools and techniques, the integration of results and the triangulation of sources, as well as the good practices and specialized training that should guide the work of the forensic expert.^36–38

Importance of methodology in obtaining psychological data

The application of a rigorous methodology in the forensic evaluation of child testimony is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of the data obtained. The methodology not only determines the quality of the account, but also protects the child from possible psychological damage derived from the intervention, such as secondary victimization or contamination of memories.^37,39 An ill-considered assessment may induce false memories, distort memory or increase the child's emotional distress.

The methodological process should contemplate the previous preparation of the case, the selection of appropriate techniques, the adaptation of the tools to the evolutionary and emotional level of the child, and the application of non-suggestive interview protocols based on scientific evidence.³⁶ In addition, the audiovisual recording of the interview should be ensured to avoid unnecessary repetitions and allow review by other professionals, which contributes to the transparency and quality of the process.³⁸ The methodology should be flexible to adapt to the particular circumstances of each case, but always within the margins set by science and professional ethics.

Evaluation tools and techniques

The forensic evaluation of child testimony is supported by a set of tools and techniques designed to maximize the obtaining of reliable information and minimize the risks of contamination or suggestion. The main ones include:

1. Structured forensic interviews: the forensic interview is the primary instrument for eliciting the child's account. Protocols such as the NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development), the Michigan Protocol, the Adapted Cognitive Interview and the CAVAS-Inscrim methodology have demonstrated efficacy in obtaining detailed accounts that are less susceptible to suggestion.^19,37,38 These protocols are based on clearly differentiated phases:

1. Establishment of rapport: Creation of a climate of trust and security.
2. Episodic memory training: Practice with narratives of recent neutral events to familiarize the child with the task.
3. Free narration: Request for a spontaneous and unguided narration of the investigated event.
4. Open and specific questions: Progression from open to specific questions, avoiding closed and suggestive questions.
5. Emotional closure: End of the interview with neutral topics and emotional support.^19,38

The interview should be audio and/or video recorded to ensure transparency, allow for review and avoid repeated interviews, which can increase secondary victimization and contamination of the narrative.³⁶

1. Psychometric and ability assessment tests: The application of psychometric instruments makes it possible to assess cognitive, emotional and communication abilities of the child, as well as to rule out possible alterations that may influence the reliability of the testimony. Tools such as the CAPALIST (Capability Assessment Capability Assessment Tool for Testifying) assess aspects such as verbal comprehension, social interaction, identification of emotions, knowledge of sexual facts and the presence of psychopathological symptoms.³⁹ This assessment is key to determine the competence of the minor as a witness and to adapt the interview to his or her individual characteristics.
2. Behavioral observation and analysis of nonverbal indicators: The observation of the child's behavior during the interview provides relevant information about his or her emotional state, level of anxiety, affective coherence and possible signs of discomfort or external pressure.³⁶ However, the literature warns that nonverbal and physiological indicators should not be used as the exclusive basis for the assessment of credibility, but as a complement to the analysis of verbal content.³⁷
3. Content analysis and credibility criteria: The analysis of the verbal content of the account is essential to assess the credibility of the testimony. Models such as SVA (Statement Validity Assessment), CBCA (Criteria-Based Content Analysis) and integrative proposals such as that of Baita and Moreno (2015) or the CAVAS-Inscrim methodology allow identifying characteristics of the account associated with veracity, such as richness of details, internal coherence, spontaneity and absence of stereotypes.³⁷

Integration of results and triangulation of sources

The integration of results obtained through different techniques and sources is a fundamental methodological principle to increase the reliability of forensic assessment. The assessment of child testimony should not be based on a single indicator, but on the convergence of multiple evidences.³⁶

1. Triangulation of sources: Triangulation involves contrasting the information obtained in the interview with other relevant data, such as medical reports, school records, adult testimony, physical or digital evidence, and observations of other professionals.³⁷ This approach reduces the risk of error and allows contextualizing the account in the globality of the child's situation.
2. Multidisciplinary integration: Collaboration between psychologists, physicians, social workers and judicial personnel is essential to understand the complexity of the case and avoid biased interpretations. The integration of perspectives favors the identification of vulnerability factors, the detection of possible external pressures and the assessment of the emotional affectation of the minor.³⁸
3. Overall assessment and issuance of the report: The final assessment should reflect the integration of all available data, highlighting elements of consistency and possible sources of distortion. The expert report must be clear, based on evidence and understandable for legal operators, avoiding value judgments or categorical statements on veracity, which corresponds solely to the judicial authority.^37,38

Good practices and training of the forensic expert

The quality of the forensic evaluation of child testimony depends largely on the training, experience and ethics of the expert witness in charge. The literature and best practice guides highlight the following principles:

1. Specialized training and continuous updating: The expert witness should have specific training in the psychology of testimony, child development, forensic interviewing techniques, and credibility analysis. Permanent updating is essential to incorporate scientific advances and regulatory changes.^37,38
2. Prevention of secondary victimization: the intervention should be oriented to minimize the emotional impact on the minor, avoiding unnecessary repetition of interviews, exposure to suggestive questions and prolongation of the process.³⁹ Audiovisual recording and coordination with judicial operators are key tools for this objective.
3. Ethics, impartiality and respect for the rights of the minor: The expert must act impartially, avoiding any type of pressure or influence on the minor's account. Respect for confidentiality, dignity and the rights of the child are inalienable principles.³⁷
4. Supervision and peer review: The review of reports and the discussion of complex cases with other professionals favor the detection of possible biases and errors, improving the quality of the evaluation.³⁶
5. Adaptation to diversity and special needs: The methodology should be adapted to the individual characteristics of the child, considering factors such as age, developmental level, presence of disability or cultural and linguistic diversity.^37,38

As the difficulty of this type of cases arises, the forensic evaluation of child testimony requires a rigorous methodology, based on scientific evidence and guided by ethical and child protection principles. The correct application of structured interviews, psychometric tests, behavioral observation and criteria analysis, together with the multidisciplinary integration and specialized training of the expert, are fundamental guarantees to obtain reliable and useful information for the administration of justice. Only through methodological excellence and ethical commitment is it possible to protect the rights of minors and contribute to the truth in judicial processes.

Over the past decades, research in child testimony psychology has highlighted the complexity inherent in the assessment of children's accounts, especially in judicial contexts where testimony may be the main or only evidence available. Key findings from the scientific literature show that children's memory, particularly in children under the age of six, is highly malleable and vulnerable to suggestion, implantation of memories, and the influence of the social and family environment. This vulnerability is manifested both in the ease with which false memories can be generated and in the difficulty to discriminate between lived, imagined or suggested experiences, which poses methodological and ethical challenges of the first order for forensic practice.^33,37,38

The synthesis of empirical evidence indicates that, although most minors do not usually lie when reporting serious events such as sexual abuse, the possibility of error, distortion or contamination of the account cannot be ruled out, especially in situations of high emotional pressure, family conflict or exposure to repeated and suggestive interviews.^39,40 The recantation of testimony, the mixture of reality and fantasy, and confusion between sources of information are common phenomena that must be considered in the expert assessment. Therefore, the elicitation and analysis of child testimony requires a rigorous methodology, the use of structured protocols, and the integration of multiple sources of information to minimize the risk of error and protect the rights of both victims and defendants.^38,41

In forensic practice, the use of structured and recorded interviews is recommended, such as the NICHD Protocol or the Adapted Cognitive Interview, which have been shown to reduce suggestibility and improve the quality of the information obtained.¹⁹ The assessment of credibility should be based on the analysis of the verbal content of the account, relying on scientific criteria and avoiding the exclusive interpretation of nonverbal or physiological indicators, which may be ambiguous or influenced by factors unrelated to the investigated event.^37,42 Forensic psychological assessment of child abuse and maltreatment. Good practice guide. Association of Forensic Psychologists for the Administration of Justice). Triangulation of sources, multidisciplinary collaboration and peer review are fundamental strategies to increase the reliability of the conclusions and guarantee the objectivity of the expert report.^36,37

Continuous and specialized training of forensic experts is another pillar for an ethical and rigorous practice. Professionals must be familiar with advances in developmental psychology, memory, interview techniques and credibility analysis, as well as with the legal regulations and ethical principles that govern intervention with minors. The prevention of secondary victimization, the adaptation of the methodology to the individual characteristics of the minor and respect for confidentiality and dignity are inalienable principles for the protection of children's rights and the quality of the judicial process.^38,39

From a public policy perspective, it is imperative that judicial institutions and child protection agencies promote the implementation of evidence-based protocols, the formation of multidisciplinary teams and the ethical supervision of interventions. The development of national and international guidelines and standards, as well as the periodic evaluation of professional practices, contributes to the continuous improvement of the system and the effective protection of the rights of minors.^41,42

Finally, future research should focus on refining assessment tools, adapting protocols to diverse cultural contexts, and identifying resilience factors that can protect minors from memory distortion. It is necessary to advance in the development of methodologies that are more ecological and sensitive to the particularities of childhood, as well as in the evaluation of the impact of judicial interventions on the psychological well-being of the children involved.^37,38

For all these reasons, the psychology of child testimony requires a scientific, ethical and multidisciplinary approach that recognizes both the vulnerability and dignity of minors. The rigorous application of validated protocols, the specialized training of professionals and the integration of ethical and public policy criteria are indispensable conditions to guarantee the reliability of testimonies and the protection of children's rights in the judicial field.

None.

None.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest and that the corresponding ethical standards have been complied with.

1. Strempler-Rubio E, Alvarado A, Vila J. Flexibility of episodic-like memory in preschool children: time and consequence. Acta de investigación psicológica. 2017;7(3):2775–2782.
2. Tulving E. Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:1–25.
3. Silva EA, Manzanero AL, Contreras MJ. Memory and language in testimony tests with children aged 3 to 6 years. Papeles del Psicólogo. 2016;37(3):224–230.
4. Bauer PJ. Remembering the times of our lives: memory in infancy and beyond. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 2007.
5. Roberts KP, Powell MB. Describing individual incidents of sexual abuse: a review of research on the effects of multiple incidents on children’s testimony. Child Abuse Negl. 2001;25(12):1643–1659.
6. Pipe M-E, Lamb ME, Orbach Y, (Eds.) et al. Child sexual abuse: disclosure, delay, and denial. Psychology Press. 2007.
7. Bruck M, Ceci SJ. The suggestibility of children's memory. Annu Rev Psychol. 1999;50:419–439.
8. Otgaar H, Howe ML, Patihis L, et al. The return of the repressed: the persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2019;14(6):1072–1095.
9. Ghetti S, Bunge SA. Neural changes underlying the development of episodic memory during middle childhood. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2012;2(4):381–395.
10. Ceci SJ, Bruck M. Suggestibility of the child witness: a historical review and synthesis. Psychol Bull. 1993;113(3):403–439.
11. Zaragoza MS, Belli RF, Payment KE. Misinformation effects and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. In M. Garry & H. Hayne (Eds.), Do justice and let the sky fall: Elizabeth Loftus and her contributions to science, law, and academic freedom (pp. 35–63). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 2007.
12. Ortega IS, Ruetti E. The child's memory in the preschool stage. Anuario de investigaciones. 2014;21(2):267–276.
13. Yates TS, Fel J, Choi D, et al. Hippocampal encoding of memories in human infants. Science. 2025;387(6740):1316–1320.
14. Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF. The science of false memory. Oxford University Press. 2005.
15. Loftus EF. Planting misinformation in the human mind: a 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learn Mem. 2005;12(4):361–366.
16. Lindsay DS, Johnson MK, Kwon P. Developmental changes in memory source monitoring. J Exp Child Psychol. 1991;52(3):297–318.
17. Ghetti S, Qin J, Goodman GS. False memories in children and adults: age, distinctiveness, and subjective experience. Dev Psychol. 2002;38(5):705–718.
18. Howe ML, Cicchetti D, Toth SL, et al. True and false memories in maltreated children. Child Dev. 2004;75(5):1402–1417.
19. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, et al. Structured forensic interview protocols improve the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: a review of research using the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse Negl. 2007;31(11–12):1201–1231.
20. Fachler SP, Hidalgo EMV, Grande CMZ. Imposed memories. Medicina Legal de Costa Rica. 2004;21(2):07–20.
21. Pynoos RS, Stein, BD. Traumatic stress in childhood and adolescence: recent developments and current controversies. In B. A. van der Kolk, A. C. McFarlane, & L. Weisaeth (Eds.), Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society (pp. 331-358). Guilford Press. 1996.
22. van der Kolk BA. The body keeps the score: memory and the evolving psychobiology of posttraumatic stress. Harv Rev Psychiatry. 1994;1(5):253–265.
23. Ceci SJ, Huffman MLC, Smith E, et al. Repeatedly thinking about a non-event: source misattributions among preschoolers. Conscious Cogn. 1994;3(3–4):388–407.
24. Hyman IE, Husband TH, Billings FJ. False memories of childhood experiences. Appl Cogn Psychol. 1995;9(3):181–197.
25. Hyman IE, Jr. Creating false autobiographical memories: why people believe their memory errors. In E. Winograd, R. Fivush, & W. Hirst (Eds.), Ecological approaches to cognition: Essays in honor of Ulric Neisser (pp. 229–252). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 1999.
26. Poole DA, Lindsay DS. Children's eyewitness reports after exposure to misinformation from parents. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2001;7(1):27–50.
27. Principe GF, Kanaya T, Ceci SJ, et al. Believing is seeing: how rumors can engender false memories in preschoolers. Psychol Sci. 2006;17(3):243–248.
28. Loftus EF, Pickrell JE. The formation of false memories. Psychiatr Ann. 1995;25(12):720–725.
29. Loftus EF, Palmer JC. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. J Verbal Learn Verbal Behav.1974;13(5):585–589.
30. Shaw J. The memory illusion: remembering, forgetting, and the science of false memory. London: Random House. 2016.
31. Shaw J. Do false memories look real? Evidence that people struggle to identify rich false memories of committing crime and other emotional events. Front Psychol. 2020;11:650.
32. Shaw J, Porter S. Constructing rich false memories of committing crime. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(3):291–301.
33. Gilabert Girón PM. False memories in children's testimonies. "Children always tell the truth." Myth or reality? [Degree Thesis]. Universidad de Alicante. 2024.
34. Wade KA, Garry M, Don Read J, et al. A picture is worth a thousand lies: using false photographs to create false childhood memories. Psychon Bull Rev. 2002;9(3):597–603.
35. Mojardín-Heráldez, A. Origin and manifestations of false memories. Acta Colombiana de Psicología. 2008;11(1):37–43.
36. Jiménez C, Martín C. The testimony assessment on sexual abuse on children. Cuadernos de Medicina Forense. 2006;12(43–44):83–102.
37. Pereyra López N. Protocol for evaluating children's testimony in cases of child sexual abuse. [Master's Thesis]. Universitat de les Illes Balears. 2019.
38. Valls Mollá L. Evaluating the credibility of testimony in child sexual abuse. [Degree Thesis]. Universidad Miguel Hernández. 2016.
39. Muñoz JM, González-Guerrero L, Sotoca A, et al. The forensic interview: eliciting cognitive evidence from alleged child victims of sexual abuse. Papeles del psicólogo. 2016;37(3):205–216.
40. Echeburúa E, Subijana IJ. Guide to good psychological practice in the judicial treatment of sexually abused children. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2008;8(3):733–749.
41. Pereyra Capó N. Analysis of the credibility of the statements of child victims of CSA, in light of Uruguayan legislation. [Degree Thesis]. Universidad de Barcelona. 2023.
42. Juárez JR, Álvarez F. Forensic psychological assessment of abuse and maltreatment of children and adolescents. Good practice guide. Asociación de Psicólogos Forenses de la Administración de Justicia. 2018.