Paper Critique Can Fabricated Evidence Induce False Eyewitness Testimony? by K. A. WADE, S. L. GREEN and R. A. NASH, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2010 The phenomenon of misinformation effect has been studied for more than four decades in various contexts related to false memory, such as inaccurate eyewitness reporting or distorted autobiographical memories (Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011). Drawing upon the seminal paper of Elizabeth Loftus (1975), depicting the effects of misinformation on witness reports, many researchers have been exploring a wide variety of related issues (Frenda et al., 2011). For instance, some have investigated theoretical accounts which may explain the psychological mechanisms responsible for human memory’s susceptibility to false information (Ayers & Reders, 1998), while others explored different forms of misinformation and their effect on people’s recollection of the past (Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Garry & Gerrie, 2005; Wright, Memon, Skagerberg, & Gabbert, 2009). One such form of misinformation widely deployed by researchers is the digitally manipulated visual content, like photos and videos (Wade, Green, & Nash, 2010). In this regard, the paper of Wade et al. (2010) entitled “Can fabricated evidence induce false eyewitness testimony?” is the first study in the field of eyewitnessing that analyses if study subjects would accuse another person of committing illegal deeds based on manipulated visual evidence, knowing that there will be real-life consequences on the accused. The topics of eyewitness memory and impact of falsified evidence on testimony have been subject of controversy for many years, given the real-world application in justice, in particularly during criminal and civil investigations (Gabbert et al., 2003; Frenda et al., 2011). As such, this paper critically reviews Wade et al.’s (2010) study with references to theoretical developments and their real-world application in the field of law enforcement. Based on research, people exposed to false information might modify their recollection of the past, either by reporting events that never happened or by providing erroneous details on the respective events (Loftus, 2005). However, until the present study, there were “no consequences for reporting inaccurate information” (Wade et. al, 2010, p. 900). Thus, in contrast with previous studies that examined the behaviour of subjects in laboratory environment, with no consequences on real-life, the article of Wade et al. (2010) examines if misleading information can determine people to give testimony on events when they know that their testimonies may have real-life consequences on the person accused. If research subjects exposed to fabricated videos are certain they have witnessed an event and are willing to remember it, they declare they witnessed it when in reality they did not. The hypothesis is tested by deploying false video procedure to sixty university students. In a first phase, the subjects believe they participate in a study examining gambling behaviour. In a second phase, they are told that their absent partner is suspect of cheating and there is a video, recording the suspect. Subsequently, some of the subjects are exposed to the manipulated video recording, where others are only told about its existence, and finally are asked to sign a declaration incriminating the subject, only if they are certain they saw the suspect cheat. Twelve subjects have signed the document, out of which only seven subjects actually saw the video, proving that fabricated information leads eyewitnesses to make false declarations even when there might be real-life consequences on the accused. Wade et al. (2010) offer a brief overview of the underpinning theories applied. On the one hand, the researchers build upon relevant psychology literature, like Loftus (2003, 2005) and her findings on the power that erroneous suggestions have, leading people to report falsely the events witnessed. Moreover, there is an ample review of studies using digitally manipulated videos or photos as a source of suggestive misleading information. The authors choose to detail on the findings of Sacchi, Agnoli, and Loftus (2007, as cited in Wade et al., 2010), outlining the power of suggestion that manipulated photos have on human memory, which is justifiable given the objective of the research paper. In the end, the authors identify as a research gap the fact that no other study analysed the real-world implications of false witnessing based on misinformation. On the other hand, the article also outlines the relevance of the study for those dealing with criminal or civil investigations and false evidence with reference to Peterson (2006, as cited in Wade et al., 2010). Although the article provides an overview of relevant theories