Do real and suggested accounts actually differ?

Over the last few years a number of studies have attempted to develop techniques that permit us to discriminate the credibility of accounts, in an effort to distinguish those based on real events from those based on imagined or suggested events. Thus, numerous techniques have emerged based on analysis of the characteristics of accounts through which such discrimination is possible. On the other hand, research based on monitoring of memory sources has shown that there are not always differences between real and suggested accounts. The present study deals with true accounts and accounts contaminated by suggested false information. The results show that there are only differences in a few dimensions, and that they fade as time goes by. It is also shown that the acceptance of false information (without the deliberate intention to lie or mislead)may actually be due to the similarity between the two types of account, which would lead to confusion in subjects about its source.