Suggestibility and Human Memory Essay

The constructive nature of memory holds that we use a variety of information such as perceptions, beliefs and attitude to fill in gaps, and that the accuracy of our memory may be altered.

The study of creation of false memories has been a topic of interest since the 1930s when Bartlett (1932) conducted the first experiment on the topic. Though the results of this experiment were never replicated, they contributed greatly to research by distinguishing between reproductive and reconstructive memory (Bartlett 1932 as cited in Roediger & McDermott, 1995). Reproductive memory refers to accurate production of material from memory and is assumed to be associated with remembering simplified materials (e.g., lists). Reconstructive memory emphasizes the active process of filling in missing elements while remembering and is associated with materials rich in meaning (e.g., stories).

Memory is one of the most critical parts of cognition. It is important because it is involved in almost every aspect of cognition including problem solving, decision making, attention, and perception. Because of this importance, people rely on one’s memory to make important decisions. The value of one’s memory in this society is so high that it is used as evidence to either save one’s life or kill one’s life during murder trials. But as many of the cognitive psychologists know, human’s memory can cause many errors. One of these errors is false memory which is either remembering events that never happened or remembering events differently from the actual event. This finding of false memory raised big interests among psychologists and

Memory is a set of cognitive processes that allow us to remember past information (retrospective memory) and future obligations (prospective memory) so we can navigate our lives. The strength of our memory can be influenced by the connections we make through different cognitive faculties as well as by the amount of time we spend devoting to learning specific material across different points in time. New memories are created every time we remember specific event, which results in retrospective memories changing over time. Memory recall can be affected retrospectively such as seeing increased recall in the presence of contextual cues or false recall of information following leading questions. Memory also includes the process

Is our justice system fair? Is our justice system truly set out to do what it was meant to do? Or are there social factors and memory errors that come into play that can change a conviction outcome. In today’s court rooms we have, Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, judges, juries, evidence, forensics experts, witness testimonies, and of course the human memory. What better type of evidence than the human memory, right? Unfortunately, human memory is subject to the power of suggestion and unable to truly recall an event when told to recall. In other words, the story may not be the same as the one that actually happened the day of that event because many variables come into play like cross examinations and the way a question can be asked can alter the answer or how the event was perceived. The main focus of this paper is to see how the human brain is not able to effectively recall events which could possibly convict an innocent person of wrong doing. Also how lawyers use the misinformation effect to their advantage. In order to understand how something as simple as a question can decide a person’s faith we must first answer some questions. First, How does memory actually work and how is memory retrieved when your need to answer a question or being cross examined? Second, how does the misinformation effect play a role when a witness needs to testify against the defense or vice versa? Third, how can structuring a word or sentence effect the outcome of a conviction?

The phenomenon of explaining false memory occurrences is rising. Researchers have developed a paradigm known as “Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm” in efforts to examine false memories in depth (Dehon, Laroi & Van der Linden, 2011). In the DRM paradigm, participants are introduced to and asked to memorize a list of correlated words congregating towards a vital subject word that is never introduced (Dehon, Laroi & Van der Linden, 2011). The rate that participants recall this false decoy is alarming. Researchers have provided several explanations to explain for the false memories in the DRM paradigm (Dehon, Laroi & Van der Linden, 2011). The two most notable in explaining false memories in the DRM paradigm are the fuzzy-trace theory and the activation/monitoring theory (Dehon, Laroi & Van der Linden, 2011). While the two theories are particularly dissimilar, they both sustain that information developing throughout list encoding attributes an essential part in false memory construction (Dehon, Laroi & Van der Linden, 2011).

Forty participants watched a short film clip about student revolution. After, the participants answered some questions about it. Half of the participants were asked if the leader of four demonstrates was a male and the other half of the participants if the leader of twelve demonstrates was a male. One week later, both groups were asked new questions about the film but they did not have the chance to watch it again. One of the questions asked was about how many demonstrates were in the film, and the results were higher on the group that it was presupposed to have 12 demonstrators. It can be concluded that a wording of one question can alter the memory regarding an

Loftuss’ conduction of experiment 2 included a delayed memory test and led to suggest that the wording of one question can change the way participants remembered the fundamental characteristics of events. Experiment 3 suggests that when a false presupposition is inherent in a question, witnesses reconstruct their memory of an event to include objects that are not actually present. In the final experiment, Loftus, demonstrated that the mention of an object, even if it was not a false presupposition, was enough to cause the object to be added to the

Human is smarter than other animals because we have a strong ability to learn and to remember. We have memories so we don’t need to relearn everything every time when we see have to use these knowledges. Then, if I ask a question, “Can you trust everything that you remembered?” Most people may say “Yes!”. However, according to the speech given by Elizabeth Loftus, a psychological scientist who studies false memory for decades, the truth might be different from what most of us think.

There are two prominent distortions of the episodic memory system: forgetting and the false memory effect. False memory is the propensity to report an event as part of an episodic experience that was not actually present (Holliday, Brainerd, & Reyna, 2011). Several theories give an explanation for this effect, but the most prominent one is the fuzzy trace theory,

A false memory is simply a memory that did not occur. An actual experience can become distorted as best illustrated by the Cog Lab experiment on false memories accessed through Argosy University. The experiment is outlined as follows: a participant is given a list of words that are highly relative in nature at a rate of about one word every 2 seconds. At the finish of the given list, the participant is then shown a list of words in which he or she is to recall the words from the original list. A special distractor is inserted to the list, and this word, although highly relative in nature, was not in the original list. For example, the

False memory studies also directly focused on eyewitness testimonies. Gerrie, Belcher and Garry (2006) studied video clips, as they most likely reflect real-life. By omitting either crucial or non-crucial steps they tested what participants were likely to falsely recall. They found that false memory effects did occur for those shown the video with the non-crucial steps missing. These participants were more likely to fill in what was missing and falsely remember non-crucial steps in between. This was found without any external suggestions on what should occur. This can benefit eyewitness testimony as by determining what aspects of a situation are more susceptible can better determine what memories may be false.

Experiment 1 results found that many of the students failed to remember the initial data provided to them at the onset of the study, which provided the effect of misinformation on the memory of the participant: “These analyses revealed a significant main effect for misinformation items, F(1, 163) = 9.89, p = .002, ηp2 = .06, 90 % CI for effect size = [.01, .12] (Cochran et al, 2016, p.721). This data confirms that the students had not retained the original memory of the crimes committed, which resulted in a large-scale choice blindness. In this manner, the multiple –choice segment of this study exposed memory lapses as part of the re-evaluation process of the participant 's memories. Therefore, misinformation was not properly identified in the remembrance of these criminal scenarios.

Memory does not work like a video camera, smoothly recording every detail. Instead, memory is more of a constructive process. We remember the details that we find most important and relevant. Due to the reconstructive nature of memory, the assimilation of old and new information has the ability to cause vulnerable memories to become distorted. This is also known as the misinformation effect (Loftus, 1997). It is not uncommon for individuals to fill in memory gaps with what they assume they must have experienced. We not only distort memories for events that we have observed, but, we may also have false memories for events that never occurred at all. False memories are “often created by combing actual memories with suggestions received from

Questionnaires were then completed regarding the details of the clip. The independent variable again was the question around the speed the vehicles were travelling at when the collision occurred. The results showed that subjects interrogated with Smashed give a mean speed of 10.46mph and those with hit a mean of 8.00 mph which evidenced a significantly different result. One week later the participants were invited back and interrogated as to whether they saw glass in the accident to which there was none. The expectation was that the participants who had initially been questioned with the Verb Smashed would be more likely to give a Yes result. Furthermore, when participants where asked whether there was glass in the accident the results supported the expectation. With over double the participants who received the verb smashed responding yes in comparison to the participants questioned with hit. The results supported the Hypotheses, and the idea that we as humans have one memory however, it is made up of two types of information the one we first gain from the event its self and secondly information gained about the event that we gain afterwards.