Episodic memory enables us to form a bank of autobiographical memories across our lifespan. The relationship between autobiographical memory and laboratory-measures of episodic memory is complicated and these processes might be differentially affected by ageing (e.g. . Different patterns of recollection for matched real-world and laboratory-based episodes in younger and older adults. Cognition, 202, 104309.). Here, we examine whether the ability to recall one's own visual perspective relates to richness of autobiographical recall, and how this relationship is affected by age. Memory of perspective at encoding, was assessed in younger (18-35 years) and older adults (65-85 years). Participants, wearing head cameras, viewed arrays of objects. Later they were asked which images represented earlier scenes, and if the image was taken from their perspective (i.e. from their camera). Performance was compared with autobiographical memory. Accuracy in identifying their own perspective correlated with autobiographical scores. Age-group was a moderating factor in this relationship. Subsequently, new participants encoded photographs of objects and were later asked whether they recognised the images. Visual perspective was manipulated in these photographs. In this task there was no relationship between performance and autobiographical memory. In younger adults only 3-D encoding of scenes relates directly to autobiographical memory but ability to complete these two tasks appears to operate independently in the older group.

Neuroscience has identified brain structures and functions that correlate with psychopathic tendencies. Since psychopathic traits can be traced back to physical neural attributes, it has been argued that psychopaths are not truly responsible for their actions and therefore should not be blamed for their psychopathic behaviors. This experimental research aims to evaluate what effect communicating this theory of psychopathy has on the moral behavior of lay people. If psychopathy is blamed on the brain, people may feel less morally responsible for their own psychopathic tendencies and therefore may be more likely to display those tendencies. An online study will provide participants with false feedback about their psychopathic traits supposedly based on their digital footprint (i.e., Facebook likes), thus classifying them as having either above-average or below-average psychopathic traits and describing psychopathy in cognitive or neurobiological terms. This particular study will assess the extent to which lay people are influenced by feedback regarding their psychopathic traits, and how this might affect their moral behavior in online tasks. Public recognition of these potential negative consequences of neuroscience communication will also be assessed. A field study using the lost letter technique will be conducted to examine lay people’s endorsement of neurobiological, as compared to cognitive, explanations of criminal behavior. This field and online experimental research could inform the future communication of neuroscience to the public in a way that is sensitive to the potential negative consequences of communicating such science. In particular, this research may have implications for the future means by which neurobiological predictors of offending can be safely communicated to offenders.

Research in neurocriminology has explored the link between neural functions and structures and the psychopathic disposition. This online experiment aimed to assess the effect of communicating the neuroscience of psychopathy on the degree to which lay people exhibited attitudes characteristic of psychopathy in particular in terms of moral behavior. If psychopathy is blamed on the brain, people may feel less morally responsible for their own psychopathic tendencies. In the study, participants read false feedback about their own psychopathic traits supposedly inferred from their Facebook likes, described either in neurobiological or cognitive terms. Participants were randomly allocated to read that they either had above-average or below-average psychopathic traits. We found no support for the hypothesis that the neuroscientific explanation of psychopathy influences moral behavior. This casts doubt on the fear that communicating the neuroscience of psychopathy will promote psychopathic attitudes.