"What else could he have done?" Creating false answers in child witnesses by inviting speculation

In 2 experiments (N = 111 children), a suggestive technique for interviewing child witnesses called "inviting speculation" was examined. Children were presented with atypical actions for common objects in a clown show. One week later, the children were asked to speculate (e.g., "What else could he have done with the knife?") in a between-subjects design on all or none of the items (Experiment 1) and in a within-subjects design on part of the items (Experiment 2), thereby getting highly probable speculations (e.g., "to cut"). After a 3-week delay, the experimenters found more highly probable but not more other false answers for the experimental items (Experiment 2). After a 5-6-month delay, the rate of (unspecified) false answers increased compared with the baseline (Experiments 1 and 2). The short-term effect is explained by a speculation-as-misinformation assumption, whereas the long-term effect is explained by the use of a metastrategy.