False Beliefs about Witness Memory in Professionals and Students of Social and Legal Sciences
Downloads
Abstract
Police officers with and without experience, trainee judges at the Judicial School, and undergraduate students in Psychology, Law, and Criminology were assessed on some of the main topics regarding the psychology of testimony. The results showed an average percentage of correct answers close to chance, with few differences between the various evaluated groups. The findings indicate that false beliefs about the functioning of witness memory are common, factors influencing the accuracy of statements and identifications are unknown, and there is limited understanding of the testimony capacity of child and elderly witnesses. It is concluded that many beliefs about witness memory are false. A mixed training in Psychology, Law, and Police Sciences could promote a better understanding of witness memory functioning, allowing for the minimization of errors in testimony assessment.
Keywords
testimonial evidence assessment, witness memory, Psychology of Testimony, beliefsReferences
Abel Lluch, X. (2020). La valoración de la credibilidad del testimonio. Wolters Kluwer.
Álvarez, M. A. (2018). Datos blandos para ciencias duras. Psicología y neurociencias. Editorial EOS.
Arkin, H. y Colton, R. R. (1962). Tables for statisticians. Barnes & Noble.
Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., y Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, Judges and Law Enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1171
Brand, B. L., Schielke, H. J., Brams, J. S., y Dicomo, R. A. (2017). Assessing trauma-related dissociation in forensic contexts: Addressing trauma related dissociation as a forensic psychologist, part II. Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 298-312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-017-9305-7
Brand, B. L., Schielke, H. J., y Brams, J. S. (2017). Assisting the courts in understanding and connecting with experiences of disconnection: Addressing trauma-related dissociation as a forensic psychologist, part I. Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-017-9304-8
Bunge, M. (2014). Las pseudociencias. ¡Vaya timo!. Laetoli.
De Paula Ramos, V. (2019). La prueba testifical: del subjetivismo al objetivismo, del aislamiento científico al diálogo con la psicología y la epistemología. Marcial Pons.
Denault, V., Plusquellec, P., Jupe, L. M., St-Yves, M., Dunbar, N. E, (…) y Van Koppen, P. J. (2020) The analysis of nonverbal communication: The dangers of pseudoscience in security and justice contexts. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 30, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2019a9
González, J. L. y Manzanero, A. L. (2018). Obtención y valoración del testimonio. Protocolo Holístico de Evaluación de la Prueba Testifical (HELPT). Pirámide.
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., y Hartwig, M. (2005). Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(5), 709-727. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.670
Houston, K. A., Hope, L., Memon, A., y Read, J. D. (2013). Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: In search of common sense. Behavioral sciences & the law, 31(5), 637-651. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2080
Kassin, S. M., Elisworth, P. C., y Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.44.8.1089
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., y Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56(5), 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.5.405
Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., y Raja, A. Q. (2010). Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1550
Manzanero, A. L. (2008). Psicología del Testimonio. Una aplicación de los estudios sobre la memoria. Pirámide.
Manzanero, A. L. (2010a). Memoria de testigos. Obtención y valoración de la prueba testifical. Pirámide.
Manzanero, A.L. (2010b). Hitos de la historia de la psicología del testimonio en la escena internacional. Boletín de Psicología, 100, 89-104. https://docta.ucm.es/bitstreams/7d89ad17-663c-4301-8828-8031554a3050/download
Manzanero, A. L. y González, J. L. (2015). Modelo holístico de evaluación de la prueba testifical (HELPT). Papeles del Psicólogo, 36(2), 125-138. https://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/2568.pdf
Manzanero, A. L. y Morales-Valiente, C. (2024). Memory wars: A solution to the conflict. Papeles del Psicólogo/Psychologist Papers, 45(1), 34-38. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol.3030
Manzanero, A. L. y Palomo, R. (2020). Dissociative amnesia: beyond the evidence about the functioning of memory. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 30, 43-46. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2019a14
Masip, J., Herrero, C., Garrido, E., y Barba, A. (2011). Is the behavior Analysis Interview just common sense?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 593-604. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1728
Merckelbach, H. y Patihis, L. (2018). Why “trauma-related dissociation” is a misnomer in courts: A critical analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b). Psychological Injury and Law, 11, 370-376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9328-8
Munro, G. D. y Munro, C. A. (2014). “Soft” versus “hard” psychological science: Biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly held political identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 533-543. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.960080
Muñoz, J. M., Manzanero, A. L., Alcázar, M. A., González, J. L., Pérez, M. L., y Yela, M. (2011). Psicología Jurídica en España: Delimitación Conceptual, Campos de Investigación e Intervención y Propuesta Formativa de la Enseñanza Oficial. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 21, 3-14. https://doi.org/10.5093/jr2011v21a1
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2010). La valoración de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Patihis, L., Ho, L. Y., Loftus, E. F., y Herrera, M. E. (2021). Memory experts’ beliefs about repressed memory. Memory, 29(6), 823-828. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1532521
Patihis, L., Otgaar, H., y Merckelbach, H. (2019). Expert witnesses, dissociative amnesia, and extraordinary remembering: response to Brand et al. Psychological Injury and Law, 12, 281-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09348-8
Ramírez Ortiz, J. L. (2020). El Testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género. Quaestio Facti. Revista Internacional Sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 2020(1), 201-246. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i0.22288
Read, J. D. y Desmarais, S. L. (2009). Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 301-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1459
Sánchez, N. y Manzanero, A. L. (2023). El engaño en contextos judiciales. Revista Ítalo–Española de Derecho Procesal, 2023(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/1518
Schell-Leugers, J. M., Masip, J., González, J. L., Vanderhallen, M., & Kassin, S. M. (2023). Police interviewing in Spain: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 33(1), 27-40. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2022a4
Scott, M. T., Manzanero, A. L., Muñoz, J. M., y Köhnken, G. (2014). Admisibilidad en contextos forenses de indicadores clínicos para la detección del abuso sexual infantil. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 24, 57-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apj.2014.08.001
Vázquez, C. (2015). De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial. Marcial Pons.
Vázquez, C. y Fernández López, M. F. (2022). La valoración de la prueba I: La valoración individual de la prueba. En J. Ferrer Beltrán (Coord.), Manual de razonamiento probatorio (pp. 289-351). Suprema Corte de Justicia de México.
Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness memory?. En G. L. Wells y E. Loftus (Comp), Eyewitnes testimony. Psychological perspectives (pp. 256-272). Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. L. y Lindsay, R. C. L. (1983). How do people infer the accuracy of eyewitness memory? Studies of performance and metamemory analysis. En S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock y B. R. Clifford (Comp.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 41-55). John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
Wise, R. A., Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., y Meyer, D. (2009). What US prosecutors and defence attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(9), 1266-1281. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1530
Wise, R. A. y Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 427-443. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.993
Yarmey, A. D. y Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense?. En S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock y B. R. Clifford (Comp.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 13-40). Wiley.
Bibliografía complementaria
Echeburúa, E., Muñoz, J. M., y Loinaz, I. (2011). La evaluación psicológica forense frente a la evaluación clínica: propuestas y retos de futuro. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11(1), 141-159. https://www.aepc.es/ijchp/articulos_pdf/ijchp-375.pdf
Herrero, C. (2021). Los conocimientos de la psicología más allá de la prueba pericial. Quaestio facti. Revista Internacional Sobre Razonamiento Probatorio, 2021(2), 363-408. https://raco.cat/index.php/quaestio-facti/article/view/399970.
Melinder, A., Goodman, G. S., Eilertsen, D. E., y Magnussen, S. (2004). Beliefs about child witnesses: A survey of professionals. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(4), 347-365. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001618717
Legislación
Anteproyecto de Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (2020) https://www.mjusticia.gob.es/es/AreaTematica/ActividadLegislativa/Documents/210126%20ANTEPROYECTO%20LECRIM%202020%20INFORMACION%20PUBLICA%20%281%29.pdf
España. Ley 4/2015, de 27 de abril, del Estatuto de la víctima del delito. (BOE, núm. 101, 28/04/2015). https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2015/04/27/4/con
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i8.23029Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Antonio L. Manzanero, Álvaro Alanzavez, Jordi Ferrer Beltrán, Carmen Vázquez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.