False memories are an important memory phenomenon within the memory and legal field. Since the outbreak of what scientists refer to as the "memory wars", high-profile cases concerning false memories helped to divulge memory's fragility to a broader audience, beyond academia (see: Schindehette, 1990; Macfarquhar, 1995; Family airing its trauma, 1996; Doctor made up 126 personalities, 1997; Board suspends license of psychiatrist, 1997; Millar, 2018). Ever since, many studies have been conducted investigating different aspects of memory's malleability. The implantation of an entire event is one of the ways by which experimenters can induce memory errors. This method has been researched widely for experiences that supposedly would have happened one time. However, to date there is still a gap in the literature in terms of experimental studies that have attempted to implant false memories for entire events that "occurred" repeatedly. This is important considering that the majority of False Memory cases brought to the attention of the legal system are reported by the alleged victims as repeated occurrences. Ever since memory's fragility has been exposed in the legal field by memory experts, it is relevant to understand how this has affected practitioners and general audience believes and understanding regarding memory. Both practitioners and general audience pose and important - direct or indirect - role in influencing cases in the legal system (e.g., media influence and decision making). We, therefore, aim to investigate the evaluations made by either legal practitioners (study I), the general audience (study II), or law students (Study III) of a sexual abuse account reporting multiple abuses, compared to their evaluation of single abuses accounts. Furthermore, we aim to investigate whether the source of the statement will influence its credibility by manipulating the age of the victim as well as the interval during which the sexual assault had taken place (i.e., child, adult short interval, or adult long interval). Research has shown that children are usually seen as less reliable than adults when it comes to producing a legal statement (Brainerd, 2013; Bruck & Ceci, 1999; Ceci & Bruck, 1993). For both Study I and Study II, we will use a 3 (Group: Child, Adult S.I., and Adult L.I.) x 2 (Frequency: Once and More Than Once) mixed design with Group being between-subjects and Frequency within subjects. We designed the study in a fashion that allows us to mainly analyse whether accounts for single sexual abuse are seen as more (or less) credible than accounts for repeated sexual abuse. We will also assess whether, when reporting a sexual assault, adults are seen as more (or less) credible than children. Additionally, we will assess whether there is a distinction between the credibility that practitioners, general audience, and law students attribute to victims of sexual abuse based on their developmental stage (child versus adult); and the sexual abuse frequency of occurrence (once versus more than once).