Criminal False Memories

1764 Words4 Pages

Traditionally, the legal system considered memory accounts to be very reliable and a valid source of legal evidence. However, recent studies have shown that autobiographical memories are quite vulnerable to distortion and are not easily distinguishable from true memories, and thus should not be given much weight in court. Likewise, the purpose of the study conducted by Shaw and Porter (2015) was to investigate whether suggestive interrogative techniques can lead to the development of criminal false memories in an experimental setting, and whether these memories could be compared to non-criminal memories and true memories (p. 292). This study also attempted to explore the effects of corroborative evidence presented to participants by their …show more content…

For the true event, the interviewer supplied accurate cues obtained from the caregiver while inaccurate cues were randomly assigned for the false event (p.293). Given that the false event had never actually happened, none of the participants were initially able to recall it. At this point, they were encouraged to use contextual reinstatement and scripted guided imagery techniques to recover the memory, both of which “have been shown to effectively generate details that form the foundations of false memories” (p. 293). All three interviews were conducted as consistently and systematically as possible across both the criminal and non-criminal conditions. The nature of the participants’ memory was probed each time they recalled an event; follow up questions were asked about the vividness of the memory, confidence in the memory as well as perspective of the memory. After the third interview, the participants were given $50 for participation and told the second memory was false. They were asked questions pertaining to their belief in the false memory such as how often they visualized the memory and how surprised they were that the event had never happened. All participants were then …show more content…

Participants who reported 10 or more details about the false event and believed the event happened were classified as having a false memory, while participants who claimed that they did not believe the event occurred but provided 10 or more details were classified as compliant - meaning that due to situational demands, they reluctantly accepted the false memory without objecting to it. On the other hand, participants who reported less than 10 details about the false event but believed that it had happened were classified as being accepting of the false event, while individuals who provided less than 10 details of the event and did not believe the event happened to them were considered to have no memory of the false event (p.

Open Document