Your Memory Isn’t a Recording

Later information can enter the story

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus's work examines how information encountered after an event can affect recollection. In her discussion with the American Psychological Association, she describes how suggestions and misinformation can contaminate a memory. Remembering is not equivalent to replaying an untouched video file. ^[1]

Imagine seeing a blue bag, then later hearing someone confidently describe a red bag. When you recall the event, you may have difficulty separating the original observation from the later description. This is a simplified example of the problem, not a claim that it happens every time.

Confidence matters—but context matters too

It would be another mistake to say confidence tells us nothing. A 2024 PNAS study discusses how confidence can predict accuracy on an immediate memory test, while contamination can make it misleading later. The conditions in which confidence is recorded are important. ^[2]

That gives us a more careful lesson: a confident account deserves attention, but confidence by itself is not independent confirmation. Ask when the account was first recorded and what the person encountered between the event and the retelling.

Keep the observation separate from the inference

A practical habit is to distinguish what you directly noticed from what you subsequently concluded. “I saw a person leave” and “that person was angry” are different kinds of statement.

For an important event, consider writing down your account before comparing stories. Note uncertainties rather than filling them with what seems likely. This is a sensible precaution suggested by the research, not a guarantee against error.

The point is not to distrust every memory. It is to understand why people can sincerely disagree, and why checking a document, photograph or other independent record can be helpful. Accurate recall and mistaken detail can exist in the same remembered scene.