If Anything Else Comes to Mind ... Better Keep It to Yourself? Delayed Recall is Discrediting-Unjustifiably

Autor(en): Oeberst, Aileen
Stichwörter: ACCURACY; CONSISTENCY; credibility; EVENTS; EYEWITNESS; eyewitness memory; Government & Law; GROWTH; implicit theories; INFORMATION; judgment; Law; MEMORY; Psychology; Psychology, Social; RECOGNITION HYPERMNESIA; reminiscence; TIME
Erscheinungsdatum: 2012
Herausgeber: AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
Journal: LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volumen: 36
Ausgabe: 4
Startseite: 266
Seitenende: 274
Zusammenfassung: 
Inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts are perceived as indicative of inaccuracy and reduce the witnesses' credibility. Reminiscence, the delayed recall of previously not recalled information, is generally interpreted as a type of inconsistency. Even though it does not necessarily involve the falsity of the statements, reminiscence presents a counterintuitive instance with mostly unknown reliability. Two studies empirically assessed the accuracy of reminiscent items after retention intervals of up to 1 week and contrasted them with peoples' beliefs regarding their accuracy. In line with an implicit assumption of memory fading with the passage of time, delayed recall of previously unmentioned details was judged to be unreliable. In contrast, actual accuracy of reminiscent details was consistently high and even comparable to immediate recollections. Although participants generally underestimated accuracy, it was most pronounced in the case of reminiscence. The findings are discussed within the context of contemporary legal practice, such as jury instructions.
ISSN: 01477307
DOI: 10.1037/h0093966

Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric