Repeated recall of repeated events: Accuracy and consistency.

In both casual conversations and interview settings, people may be required to provide details of instances that were similar to other experiences. When this happens repeatedly, consistency across reports is often taken as a proxy for credibility. However, processes of schema formation and interference due to similarity make recall and accurate source attribution of details to specific instances challenging. We investigated the accuracy and consistency of recall in these contexts in a re-analysis of five studies. Confusions of details were widespread (1) across instances—participants frequently attributed the origin of details to incorrect instances, but also (2) across repeated retrieval attempts—participants frequently changed parts of their reports. There was, however, a clear pattern of primacy and recency effects: recall of the first and final instances was more accurate and consistent than recall of the middle instances. We discuss potential mechanisms underlying these effects as well as their practical implications.