Robert Epstein

Opinion contributor

I've been a researcher in psychology for a long time, which is why I've decided to weigh in on the Brett Kavanaugh-Christine Blasey Ford saga. Decades of research in the behavioral sciences suggest that they are not equally credible witnesses, at least not when it comes to reporting on the incident in question. I’m a political moderate, by the way, so please don't infer a political message in what I'm about to tell you. There isn't one. The research says what it says.

I can’t tell you the truth about what actually occurred back when they were teen-agers — no one can, not even Ford or Kavanaugh. But I can tell you without doubt that one of these individuals is almost certainly more believable than the other.

Human memory is incredibly complex and poorly understood. Unlike computer memory, which normally stores and retrieves information without distorting it in any way, human memory is constructive, creative, and ever changing. One of the few kinds of memory that gets instantly preserved — sometimes forever — is that caused by trauma, in part because people who experience trauma often relive the traumatic event thousands of times as the years go by. That’s why victims tend, on average, to be more reliable reporters than perpetrators.

Trauma gave Ford reason to lock in memories

But it’s not that simple. In reliving traumatic events over and over, victims sometimes distort and exaggerate those events, and crystal-clear memories of a traumatic event occasionally prove to be entirely false. In recent years, DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of men whose accusers sometimes remembered them with “100 percent” confidence.

That said, it’s hard to imagine how Ford could have constructed a false memory of the alleged assault. Given that she disclosed details about it to both her therapist and her husband in 2012, years before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, her memory seems to be very old and to stand on its own. The main takeaway here is that Kavanaugh would have had no reason to remember the incident in question, but Ford — the traumatized 15-year-old — would very likely have locked in some aspects of the event quite accurately.

More:How could both Kavanaugh and Ford be telling the truth? Trauma, alcohol and time.

Kavanaugh's record of misleading statements gives FBI inquiry many targets

Brett Kavanaugh and Bill Clinton should teach a Yale Law master class on truth evasion

Research on motivation is also complex, but it suggests that one way to understand the differences we saw in the testimony offered by Kavanaugh and Ford is to look at the consequences, both real and possible, of the accounts that were given. By speaking out and then testifying before Congress, Ford has put both herself and her family at great risk. True, she might get some fans and some speaking opportunities down the road, but, on balance, the consequences of her speaking out are mainly negative and might remain so for the rest of her life. If you doubt that, just ask Anita Hill about her life following the Clarence Thomas hearings.

The consequences for Kavanaugh are exactly the opposite. The payoff for denying that the incident occurred, or for denying that he was a heavy drinker in high school and college, are almost obscenely positive. Denial might literally be rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. From a motivational perspective, Kavanaugh’s denials are highly suspect and Ford’s statements are credible — even admirable, by some standards.

Kavanaugh's tell-tale signs of hiding things

Finally, research on lying generally confirms what common sense dictates. Generally speaking, when someone is evasive under questioning, as Kavanaugh was throughout his testimony, that’s a strong indication that he or she is hiding things. Anger and indignation can also be tell-tale signs. When one adds to this picture the fact that four of Kavanaugh’s classmates at Yale — two of them male drinking buddies — have now gone on record to say that Kavanaugh was lying about his college drinking habits, the likelihood that he was honest and forthcoming throughout his testimony before Congress seems remote indeed.

I've been a behavioral scientist now for about 40 years. To me, the relevant research practically shouts its ruling on this matter: Dr. Ford is a far more credible witness than Judge Kavanaugh.

Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, is a former editor in chief of Psychology Today and the author of 15 books. He is currently working on a book called "Technoslavery: Invisible Influence in the Internet Age and Beyond." Follow him on Twitter: @DrREpstein