An Israeli study suggests that even as people’s memories lose sharpness over time, the stories they tell themselves about why they remember something can stay strikingly consistent—offering a potential new tool for evaluating memory in courtrooms, clinics, and everyday disputes.
Researchers examined self-reported “memory justifications” from 421 participants and used linguistic analysis to see what changed as time passed. The headline finding: Participants became less able to recall specific event details, but the explanations they offered for their recollections held steady in both richness and content. The study found that the frequency of these explanations and the categories of words used remained stable, pointing to a pattern that may be less vulnerable to the normal erosion that affects autobiographical memory.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
That matters because memory is often tested in high-stakes settings—witness statements, therapy sessions, workplace investigations—where fact and feeling can blur. Traditional research has long shown that confidence and accuracy are not the same thing; people can be sure and wrong, or unsure and right. This study adds a more nuanced possibility: a person may struggle to retrieve exact details yet still give a consistent account of why the memory “stuck,” which could serve as a more durable indicator than the memory’s vividness.
The researchers also detected subtle wording shifts over time that may signal fading confidence as events recede, even when the underlying justification remains intact. In practical terms, the study suggests that a memory can feel “fuzzy” while the reasoning behind it stays coherent.
The findings were published in Communications Psychology, and the authors cautioned that legal and clinical professionals should consider both elements: stable justifications may help assess reliability, while confidence may still drift with time.