Memory: More Than Just a Replay Button

 

Believe it or not, our memories are not perfect photographs. They are influenced by what happened and our existing knowledge and understanding of the world. 

Bartlett's War of the Ghosts: Memory Reconstruction

Goldstein (2019) writes about a classic study by Bartlett in 1932:

• Participants read a story from Canadian folklore and were then asked to recall it at various intervals.
• Interestingly, over time, their memories became shorter and contained inaccuracies.
• However, the exciting part was that their memories often reflected their cultural background rather than the story's origin.
• For instance, canoes became boats, and a hesitant participant transformed into a courageous fighter.

Barlett's work highlighted various sources, including our experiences, to fill the gaps and create a coherent narrative.

Making Inferences: Filling in the Blanks

Our memories are also influenced by inferences we make based on our knowledge. Imagine being asked to wait in an office before a psychology experiment. Later, you're asked to recall the office details. You might report seeing bookshelves, even if there weren't any. Why? Because your "office schema" includes books as a common element.

Schemas are mental frameworks for various situations, like banks, restaurants, or classrooms. They help us organize information and make inferences about what might be present, even if we don't see it (Goldstein 2019).

Scripts: The Power of Sequence

Goldstein (2019) tells us that scripts are similar to schemas, but they focus on the sequence of events in a familiar situation:

1. Think of your coffee shop routine: waiting in line, ordering, paying, getting your drink. Scripts can influence memory by creating expectations about what typically happens.

Memory: A Tapestry of Experience

These examples highlight that memory is a complex process. Our experiences, knowledge, and cultural background all weave together to create a unique tapestry of memories. Understanding these influences is crucial for interpreting memories accurately, especially in situations like eyewitness testimony.

References

Goldstein, B. (2019). Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience (5th ed.) [Review of Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research, and Everyday Experience]. Cengage

Busted by BS! Eyewitness Memory Isn't Always Reliable

What if our memories aren't as reliable as we believe? A recent study/review by Brassil and colleagues (2024) sheds light on a key vulnerability: misinformation.

Here is the surprising truth: memories aren't like recordings. They're more like reconstructions, priced together over time, making them susceptible to being influenced by new information, even if inaccurate (Brassil et al., 2024).

But there is a glimmer of hope! The study also found that more potent cognitive abilities can buffer against misinformation. People with higher general intelligence, reasoning skills, sound perception, and sharp memories are less likely to be warped by misleading information.

Brassil and colleagues  (2024) analyzed nine studies and identified 23 connections between cognitive abilities and how accurately people remember events they witnessed; here are some key cognitive skills that play a role:

1. General Intelligence (especially non-verbal): This includes your ability to solve problems, think abstractly, and understand visual information.
2. Perceptual abilities: How well you see, hear, and process information from your senses can significantly impact how you remember an event. 
3. Working memory capacity is the ability to hold and manipulate information in one's mind for short periods. Stronger working memory helps one filter distractions and focus on the event's details.
4. Autobiographical memory specificity refers to how well you remember the specifics of recent events in your life. The better you can recall the who, what, where, when, and why of a recent experience, the less susceptible you might be to misinformation.

So, how do these cognitive abilities protect eyewitness memory? Brassil and colleagues (2024) suggest three mechanisms:

• Improved source-monitoring: This is the ability to identify where information came from. Distinguishing between what you actually saw and what you heard later helps you avoid incorporating misinformation.
  
  
  
  
• Enhanced discrepancy detection: This involves spotting inconsistencies between different pieces of information. If you have strong discrepancy detection skills, you're more likely to notice when new information clashes with your original memory of the event.
• Better encoding of the original memory: Encoding is the process of memory formation. More robust encoding creates a more detailed and accurate memory representation. This makes it easier to identify inconsistencies with misleading information later on.

The Bottom Line

Eyewitness memory can be a powerful tool, but awareness of its vulnerabilities is essential. Recognizing the influence of misinformation and the role of cognitive abilities can help us improve the accuracy and reliability of eyewitness accounts in legal settings and everyday life.

References

​​Brassil, M., O’Mahony, C., & Greene, C​. (2024). Do Cognitive Abilities Reduce ​Eyewitness Susceptibility to the Misinformation Effect? A Systematic Review [Review​ of Do Cognitive Abilities Reduce Eyewitness Susceptibility to the Misinformation ​Effect? A Systematic Review]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review​. Research Gate. ​https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02512-5

Can Virtual Reality Help Us Understand Eyewitness Testimony?

 Eyewitness testimony is a cornerstone of criminal justice, but it's not always reliable. Witness memory can be surprisingly faulty, influenced by stress and question phrasing. Psychologists are constantly looking for better ways to understand eyewitness experiences, and a new study by Glomb and colleagues (2023) suggests virtual reality (VR) might be a game-changer. 

This study compared how people responded to a crime scene filmed: a traditional video and a VR experience. The researchers found that VR made people feel more immersed and "present" in the scene. They also felt a stronger sense of transportation, as if they were there witnessing the crime.

Here's where Things Get Interesting

Glomb and colleagues (2023) found some interesting results:

VR and Guilt: People who watched the VR scene felt more guilty afterward. The researchers suggest this might be a "vicarious guilt," like they could have somehow stopped the crime.

Screen vs. VR Emotions: Surprisingly, people who watched the video on a screen reported feeling more anger and hatred towards the perpetrators. The researchers offer a few reasons for this. Ma
Focusing on a limited screen view intensified negative emotions, while VR's broader view allowed for more nuanced feelings.

Limitations and the Road Ahead

The study had limitations. The sample size was small, and they couldn't compare VR to a real-life scenario. Still, the findings are promising for using VR to study eyewitness testimony. Here's what the  Glomb and colleagues (2023) propose for future research:

1. VR vs Real Life: Studies comparing VR to real-life situations would strengthen the case for VR's ecological validity (how well it reflects real-world experiences).
2. Bigger Studies, Better Data: More participants would produce more statistically robust results.
3. Capturing Surprise: Using methods that measure surprise could help researchers understand how VR evokes emotional responses.
4. Deeper Dives: Going beyond multiple-choice answers and allowing participants to describe their feelings in their own words would provide richer data on VR's emotional impact.
5. VR and Pleasantness: Investigating if the inherent enjoyment of VR itself affects emotional responses is crucial.

Based on their study's results, Glomb and colleagues (2023) have suggested that VR can revolutionize understanding eyewitness testimony. By creating a more realistic experience, VR could help us improve the accuracy of eyewitness accounts and ultimately strengthen the justice system. As VR technology develops, so will our ability to unlock the secrets of human memory and perception.

References

Glomb, K., Piotrowski, P., & Romanowska, I. (2023). It is not real until it feels real: Testing a new method for simulation of eyewitness experience with virtual reality technology and equipment. Behavior Research Methods. [Review of It is not real until it feels real: Testing a new method for simulation of eyewitness experience with virtual reality technology and equipment. Behavior Research Methods.]. Behavior Research Methods. Research Gate. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02186-2

Could Ditching the Interview Room Let Witnesses Focus on What Matters?

 

Could Ditching the Interview Room Let Witnesses Focus on What Matters?

14

As I have said, eyewitness testimony is a cornerstone of the legal system, but stress and social pressure can lead to inaccurate recall. Researchers Taylor and Dando (2018) investigated a virtual environment solution.

The Experiment: Interviewing Avatars, Not Faces

The researchers recruited 38 adults (aged 18-38) and showed them a video of a staged car theft. After 48 hours, participants were interviewed about the video. Here's the twist: half the interviews were conducted face-to-face, while the other half took place in a virtual environment with participants and interviewers represented by avatars.

Sharper Memories with Avatars

The results were intriguing. People interviewed in the virtual environments had significantly better memory than those interviewed face-to-face. They recalled more accurate details, made fewer errors, and were likelier to admit when they did not remember something.

Why Virtual Reality Might Be the Key

The researchers believe virtual environments offer two key advantages:

1. Reduced Stress: Face-to-face interviews can be stressful, potentially leading witnesses to guess or forget details. Virtual environments might create a more relaxed atmosphere, reducing this pressure.
2. Focus on the Scene: Witnesses need to manage social cues and the interview environment during a face-to-face interview. Virtual environments might eliminate these distractions, allowing them to focus solely on recalling the event.

A Glimpse into the Future, But Questions Remain

While promising, the study acknowledges some limitations. The sample size was small, and the staged crime scenario may not reflect the complexities of real-world situations. Additionally, the virtual environment used was basic. Future research is needed with larger, more diverse samples, realistic scenarios, and immersive virtual environments.

The Bottom Line

Virtual environments show potential for improving eyewitness memory. By reducing stress and distractions, Virtual environments could lead to more accurate and reliable eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. As technology advances, psychology research can be crucial in shaping how we utilize these tools to ensure a fairer justice system.

References

1. Taylor, D. A., & Dando, C. J. (2018). Eyewitness Memory in Face-to-Face and Immersive Avatar-to-Avatar Contexts. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 507.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00507