Autobiographical memory, eyewitness reports, and public policy.

Abstract

In the first part of this article I summarize the source-monitoring perspective on the cognitive processes involved in differentiating between mental events from different sources (e.g., memories of what one witnessed during a crime versus memories of what one later heard a cowitness describe). In the middle section of the article I consider, from the perspective of the source-monitoring framework, four issues pertaining to remembering in forensic situations: 1) adults' memory reports, 2) children's memory reports, 3) "recovered memories" of childhood sexual abuse, and 4) eyewitnesses' suspect-identification decisions. I then comment briefly on research psychologists as expert witnesses before offering some concluding comments.

Variations of the cognitive interview: Which one is the most effective in enhancing children's testimonies?

“…However, although the young group gave more accurate accounts (Experiment 1), the reporting accuracy was also very high for the very young group (97% vs. 92% in Experiment 1; 95% vs. 90% in Experiment 2). Concerning resistance to suggestions, consistent with previous research (see Ceci & Bruck, 1998;Lindsay, 2007), the very young children were more influenced (yes/misled) by, but also, less resistant (no/not misled) to misleading questions (which suggested incorrect information) than were the young children (Experiments 1 and 2). Our results concerning the children's free recall and suggestibility provided us with an answer to these two questions: What is the influence of the CI and its variations on children's statements?…”

“…It is now well documented that children under the age of 6, in comparison to older children, are highly sensitive to the influence of adults (Ceci & Bruck, 1998;Geddie, Fradin, & Beer, 2000;Greenstock & Pipe, 1996;Lindsay, 2007). However, the link between age and suggestibility may be not that linear (e.g.…”

Imagery encoding effects on memory in the DRM paradigm: A test of competing predictions

“…Seamon et al, 2006). Consistent with the SMF, imagery scripts that emphasize perceptual and contextual detail may be especially likely to induce memory errors because the presence of these kinds of cues often signal that a memory might be based on an event directly experienced (Gonsalves, Reber, Gitelman, Parrish, Mesulam, & Paller, 2004;Johnson et al, 1993;Lindsay, 2008a). More elaborate imagery scripts emphasizing perceptual details do indeed exaggerate imagination inflation effects (Thomas et al, 2003).…”

Recognition and context memory for faces from own and other ethnic groups: A remember-know investigation

“…Failures of contextual memory can have very serious consequences in some situations, such as when a witness identifies a suspect in a criminal case (Lindsay, 2007). For example, a substantial body of research has shown that searching mugshots after witnessing a crime is very harmful to later lineup identifications (Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod, 2006).…”