En Búsqueda de una Definición Empírica de un Modelo Social de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Memoria

  1. Adriana Selaya 1
  2. Manuel Vilariño 1
  3. Ramón Arce 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Journal:
Revista iberoamericana de psicología y salud

ISSN: 2171-2069

Year of publication: 2024

Volume: 15

Issue: 1

Pages: 12-17

Type: Article

DOI: 10.23923/J.RIPS.2024.01.071 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista iberoamericana de psicología y salud

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The cornerstone on which the burden of proof rests in criminal cases is the credibility attributed to the complainant’s testimony. Two models have been formulated for the assessment of the credibility of testimony: a social one, performed by the general population based on socially learned experience and knowledge, and a scientific one, supported by scientific evidence and performed by expert psychologists. A study was designed with the aim of developing an empirical model of how social judgements are formed based on an assessment of the quality of memory and to find out the quality of judgements based on this model. Method: A total of 560 (Mage = 36.84 years; 61.6% female) lay people in Psychology from the general population participated in the study and responded to an instrument measuring myths/false beliefs and scientific knowledge about memory. Results: The results showed that the general population (lay people in Psychology of testimony) use myths and false beliefs about memory, together with scientific knowledge, for the assessment of memory quality. In addition, they provided support (exploratory factor analysis) for a three-factor model of memory quality assessment: traumarelated memories, veracity of testimony, and memory span. A confirmatory factor analysis validated the factor structure. Conclusions: These results have direct implications for the assessment of the quality (credibility) of memories (testimony) in the judicial context. Thus, in the evaluation of the quality of the testimony, lay persons in Psychology of testimony, including judicial judgement makers and jurors, base the formation of judgments on erroneous criteria (myths and false beliefs about the quality of memory) and on a model of judgment formation that is not scientifically endorsed.

Bibliographic References

  • Akehurst, L., Köhnken, G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(6), 461-471. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)10990720(199612)10:6<461::AID-ACP413>3.0.CO;2-2
  • Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothesis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(1), 3-12. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
  • Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilariño, M. (2016). Criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294170
  • Arce, R. (2017). Content analysis of the witness statements: Evaluation of the scientific and judicial validity of the hypothesis and the forensic proof [Análisis de contenido de las declaraciones de testigos: Evaluación de la validez científica y judicial de la hipótesis y la prueba forense]. Acción Psicológica, 14(2), 171-190. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.14.2.21347
  • Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2005). Peritación psicológica de la credibilidad del testimonio, la huella psíquica y la simulación: El Sistema de Evaluación Global (SEG) [Psychological evidence in court on statement Figure 1 Empirical Model of Social Evaluation Criteria for the Credibility of TestimonySocial Model of Memory Quality 17 credibility, psychological injury and malingering: The Global Evaluation System (GES)]. Papeles del Psicólogo, 26, 59-77. https://www. papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/1247.pdf
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Seijo, D. (2003). Laypeople’s criteria for the discrimination of reliable from non-reliable eyewitnesses. In M. Vanderhallen, G. Vervaeke, P. J. Van Koppen, & J. Goethals (Eds.). Much ado about crime (pp. 105-116). Uitgeverij Politeia NV.
  • Arce, R., Selaya, A., Sanmarco, J., & Fariña, F. (2023). Implanting rich autobiographical false memories: Meta-analysis for forensic practice and judicial judgment making. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 23(4), 100386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2023.100386
  • Berkowitz, S. R., Garrett, B. L., Fenn, K. M., & Loftus, E. F. (2022). Eyewitness confidence may not be ready for the courts: A reply to Wixted et al. Memory, 30(1), 75-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1952271
  • Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W., & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 139145. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.139
  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230-258. https://doi. org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
  • Clifasefi, S. L., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. (2007). Setting the record (or video camera) straight on memory: The video camera model of memory and other memory myths. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Tall tales about the mind & brain: Separating fact from fiction (pp. 60-75). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198568773.003.0006
  • Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 584-594.
  • Conway, M. A., & Howe, M. L. (2022). Memory construction: A brief and selective history. Memory, 30(1), 2-4. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965821 1.2021.1964795
  • Gancedo, Y., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., Vilariño, M., & Arce, R. (2021). Reality monitoring: A meta-analytical review for forensic practice. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 99-110. https:// doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a10
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. https://doi. org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  • Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0014694
  • Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67
  • Review, 88(1), 67-85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.1.67 Ley Orgánica 3/2018, de 5 de diciembre, de Protección de Datos Personales y Garantía de los Derechos Digitales. (2018). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 294, 119788-119857. https://www.boe.es/boe/dias/2018/12/06/pdfs/ BOE-A-2018-16673.pdf
  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2010). 50 great myths of popular psychology: Shattering widespread misconceptions about human behavior. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • about human behavior. Wiley-Blackwell. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-offit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410. https://psycnet.apa.org/ doi/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391
  • Oberlader, V. A., Naefgen, C., Koppehele-Gossel, J., Quinten, L., Banse, R., & Schmidt, A. F. (2016). Validity of content-based techniques to distinguish true and fabricated statements: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 40(4), 440-457. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/ lhb0000193
  • Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1072-1095. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691619862306
  • Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.3.182
  • Schacter, D. L. (2022). The seven sins of memory: An update. Memory, 30(1), 37-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1873391
  • Sporer, S. L., & Küpper, B. (1995). Realitätsüberwachung und die Beurteilung des Wahrheitsgehaltes von Erzählungen: Eine experimentelle Studie [Reality monitoring and the judgment of the truthfulness of accounts: An experimental study]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 26(3), 173-193.
  • Steller, M., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Criteria-Based Content Analysis. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.), Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 217-245). Springer-Verlag.
  • Sun, J. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 240256. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2005.11909764
  • Tanaka, J. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Sage.
  • Undeutsch, U. (1967). Beurteilung der glaubhaftigkeit von zeugenaussagen [Assessing the credibility of witness statements]. In U. Undetsch (Ed.). Handbuch der psychologie, Vol. II: Forensische psychologie (pp. 26-181). Verlag für Psychologie.
  • Volbert, R., & Steller, M. (2014). Is this testimony truthful, fabricated, or based on false memory? Credibility assessment 25 years after Steller and Köhnken (1989). European Psychologist, 19(3), 207-220. https:// doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000200
  • Vrij, A., Palena, N., Leal, S., & Caso, L. (2021). The relationship between complications, common knowledge details and self-handicapping strategies and veracity: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 13(2), 55-77. https://doi. org/10.5093/ejpalc2021a7
Data source: Dialnet