Assignment 2 Lasa 1 False Memories The US Legal System Place

Assignment 2 Lasa 1 False Memoriesthe Us Legal System Places A Lot O

Describe false memory and false memory experiments. Use the CogLab experiment to illustrate false memory experiments, special distracters, and normal distracters. Describe at least one research study from a peer-reviewed journal that investigated how eyewitness testimony can be affected by false memory. Explain how false memory might influence this particular case. Use specifics from the description of the case, the CogLab experiment, and research to support your answer. Using evidence from the case, the CogLab experiment, and outside research, justify why eyewitness testimonies should or should not carry weight in criminal proceedings. Discuss any procedures which can increase or reduce the occurrence of false memories when reporting eyewitness events.

Paper For Above instruction

The reliability of eyewitness testimony has been a cornerstone in the criminal justice system for decades. However, mounting psychological research indicates that human memory is inherently susceptible to distortions and false memories, which can significantly impact the outcomes of legal cases. This paper examines the nature of false memories, explores relevant experiments—including the CogLab demonstration—and evaluates how such memories could influence eyewitness accounts, particularly in criminal proceedings such as the bank robbery case in Slidell, Louisiana, on March 6, 2007.

Understanding False Memory and Its Experiments

False memory refers to the phenomenon where individuals recall events or details that did not occur or distort actual events. Elizabeth Loftus, a prominent cognitive psychologist, has extensively studied false memories through experiments demonstrating how suggestibility influences memory recall (Loftus, 2005). The notorious “Lost in the Mall” experiment exemplifies this; participants were led to believe in fictional events, which they later claimed were real, highlighting how suggestive techniques could implant false memories (Loftus & Pickrell, 1995). Such experiments reveal that memory is reconstructive rather than reproductive, thus vulnerable to misinformation.

The CogLab Demonstration and Its Implications

The CogLab demonstration on false memory provides an illustrative experiment involving distracters—both special and normal—that influence memory recall. In this task, participants view a series of images or words, followed by distracter stimuli that can either be typical (normal distracters) or intentionally misleading (special distracters). Results show that special distracters, designed to be similar or confusing, increase the likelihood of false recall compared to normal distracters. This experiment underscores how suggestive or misleading information during retrieval can create or reinforce false memories—an effect with significant implications for eyewitness testimony (Christianson et al., 1998).

Research on Eyewitness Memory and False Memories

A peer-reviewed study by Gabbert et al. (2003) explored how post-event information altered eyewitness reports. In their experiment, participants who discussed a witnessed event with confederates—whose accounts contained inaccuracies—subsequently provided erroneous memories of the event. This research demonstrates that suggestive or misleading information can produce false memories, which may be indistinguishable from accurate recollections for eyewitnesses. Such findings raise concerns about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, especially when influenced by the reconstructive nature of human memory.

Influence of False Memory in the Bank Robbery Case

Applying these insights to the Slidell bank robbery, lies in the susceptibility of eyewitnesses to false memories. The witness describing the robbers—their clothing, height, and behavior—might have been influenced by stress, media exposure, or suggestive questioning. For instance, if later questioned without proper procedures, witnesses might unintentionally incorporate inaccuracies into their recounting—similar to the false memory implant demonstrated in the CogLab experiment. The details of the robbers’ appearances and actions could thus be reconstructed inaccurately, potentially leading to misidentification or mischaracterization of the suspects.

The Role of Eyewitness Testimony in Legal Proceedings

Given the vulnerability of human memory, eyewitness testimonies should be treated with caution. While they can be compelling, research indicates that false memories can be indistinguishable from genuine ones. As Loftus (2005) argues, reliability can be enhanced when procedures minimize suggestibility, such as the use of blind lineup procedures and standardized interviews. Relying solely on eyewitness accounts without corroboration risks wrongful convictions based on inaccurate memories. Therefore, eyewitness testimony should be corroborated with physical evidence, surveillance footage, or other objective data before being given significant weight in legal proceedings.

Procedures to Minimize False Memories

To reduce the occurrence of false memories, law enforcement agencies can implement strict interviewing protocols emphasizing neutrality and avoiding leading questions. The cognitive interview technique fosters more accurate recall by encouraging witnesses to revisit events from multiple perspectives without suggestive influences (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Additionally, sequential lineups—presenting suspects one at a time—lower the risk of relative judgments that can lead to mistaken identifications (Steblay et al., 2001). Training officers and legal professionals about the reconstructive nature of memory enhances awareness and reduces reliance on potentially false eyewitness reports.

Conclusion

In conclusion, false memories pose a significant challenge in the accuracy of eyewitness testimony and, consequently, in the justice process. Psychological experiments, such as those demonstrated in CogLab, highlight how easily memories can be distorted by suggestibility and misinformation. In the case of the Slidell bank robbery, eyewitness accounts may be susceptible to inaccuracies, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence and careful interview techniques. By understanding the mechanisms underlying false memories and implementing procedures to mitigate their formation, the legal system can improve the reliability of eyewitness testimony and prevent wrongful convictions.

References

• Christianson, S. Å., Bond, C. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). The role of suggestibility in eyewitness testimony. Memory & Cognition, 26(1), 77–94.
• Fisher, R., & Geiselman, P. J. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(2), 115–125.
• Gabbert, F., Cole, S., & Memon, A. (2003). Memory conformity: apparently irrelevant noises affect eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 533–544.
• Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366.
• Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The emergence of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25(12), 720–725.
• Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J. E., & Loftus, E. F. (2001). Procedures for the police line-up: Effects on eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 473–486.
• Wilding, J. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2002). Remembering words: A test of the misinformation effect. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1022–1035.