Trained but still tricked: source sensitisation training fails to reduce false memory reports

False autobiographical memories can have serious implications in legal settings, where the case outcomes may hinge entirely on memory-based eyewitness testimony. This study investigated whether a sensitisation memory training could reduce false autobiographical memory reports. We employed a blind implantation method in which participants (N = 294) indicated whether various childhood events had happened to them. Participants were then told they had confirmed five events - one of which was false - and were asked to rate their memory and belief. In session two, 15% (44/294) of participants reported a false belief and an additional 3.4% (10/294) a false memory, meaning that a total of 18.4% made a false report. Before session three, participants were randomly assigned to receive either the memory training or a distractor task, then repeated the false memory procedure. Contrary to our expectations, the training did not reduce false reports. Instead, false beliefs (SMT: 20.4%, 28/137, Control: 22.3%, 31/139) and false memories (SMT: 5.1%, 7/137, Control: 2.9% 4/139) increased in session three. The findings suggest false memories elicited in the blind implantation paradigm might be particularly resistant to correction.