Memory and Witness Retrieval Annotated Bibliography Chan,

¶ … Memory and Witness Retrieval Annotated Bibliography Chan, J.C., & LaPaglia, J.A. (2011). The dark side of testing memory: Repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 418. This research article presents the methodological construct, observable results and wider implications of an experimental inquiry conducted to test a phenomenon known as retrieval-enhanced suggestibility (RES).

Coined to describe the counterintuitive trend of eyewitness suggestibility increasing after repeated retrieval attempts, here the concept of RES was tested using a four-part experimental structure designed to examine the link between multiple retrieval attempts and witness suggestibility to the presentation of subsequent misinformation. The research team constructed four spate experimental designs to test three variables: number of initial tests conducted (0, 1, 3, 5, and 6 across the various experiments), delay separating the initial and final tests (i.e., 30 min or 1 week), and presence of testing manipulation (i.e., nontested vs.

tested) occurring between or within subjects. As the first published study on RES to integrate both the between- and within-subjects design, this article presents an abundance of previously unreported information on memory retrieval and witness suggestibility, ultimately concluding across all four experimental designs that repeated testing of memory increased eyewitness suggestibility to later presentation of misinformation. Lacy, J.W., & Stark, C.E. (2013). The neuroscience of memory: implications for the courtroom. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(9), 649-658.

This article presents the findings of an extensive literature review conducted to assess the imperfect nature of memory reconstruction, as it pertains to the retention of violent or traumatic events which are later required to be recalled during eyewitness testimony in the courtroom. By examining nearly 100 scholarly contributions to the discussion of memory retrieval and reconstruction, the authors attempt to demonstrate that, despite a prevailing societal notion that eyewitness testimony constitutes ironclad evidence, current psychological and neurological research indicates that memory recall is a highly subjective process prone to suggestibility.

With their research focus confined to the consequences of memory distortions on courtroom proceedings, the authors synthesize the published findings of dozens of their peers, compiling enough evidence to develop a highly compelling case in favor of their initial hypothesis.

After examining a wide array of empirically tested results, the authors conclude that memory retrieval is a highly imperfect process prone to distortion, suggestibility, and outright error, while also providing a clear set of pragmatic recommendations for improving suspect identification methodologies, judicial oversight of witness examination, and several other crucial factors involving the legal ramifications of memory retrieval. Leippe, M.R., Eisenstadt, D., & Rauch, S.M. (2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.

This research article presents the methodology, experimental design and findings of a quantitative study constructed to test the correlation between biased instructions, lineup composition and other variables on the accuracy and confidence of eyewitness identifications. The researchers presented a sample group of students with a film depicting a scene of petty theft, before using two separate experimental designs to test their ability to provide accurate eyewitness identifications when presented with biased instructions and other elements of the author's proposed cue-belief framework of memory retrieval.

According to this model, when biased instructions are given to eyewitnesses prior to a suspect lineup, this sends a "positive accuracy cue" to respondents regarding the most.