Memory and the Law Flashcards
source monitoring errors, schemas, scripts, pragmatic inferences
Source Monitoring Errors: determining the origin of our beliefs and knowledge is a decision-making process
Schemas: mental models
Scripts: sequence of action
Pragmatic Inferences: inferences we make in a situation BASED ON OUR EXPECTATIONS; informed by prior knowledge and experience
^^When left unchecked, these have harmful side effects
Misinformation Effect: misleading post event info; VERY SIMILAR TO RETROACTIVE INTERFERENCE WHERE NEW INFO STARTS COMPETING WITH PRE EXISTING MEMORY
Propensity Reasoning:
people reasoned because he had done robberies before and therefore had done this one
Factors that Influence Eyewitness Testimony/ Wrongful Conviction
Memory contamination
Stress
Suspect lineups
How investigators phrase questions
Witness’s poor eyesight
Cross-race effect
Witness bias
Tunnel vision investigation
lack of fulsome police investigation, other possible suspects, gathering evidence process, if relevant but contradictory evidence is withheld or not presented during the trial by prosecution
Dock Identification:
where person is held and witness walks in and looks at the person and then identifies them but couldn’t identify them before
Concealed Information Tests
Detect specific concealed information, which a trier of fact could consider as a part of the totality of the circumstances to infer guilt
Includes ANS responses, believed to be involuntary like skin conductance response (FILL IN)
NOT ACCURATE
EEG ‘
Measures summed spatial and temporal electrical activity in the brain generated by neurons
When a neuron is stimulated by a signal from the environment or another neuron, it triggers a complex process of electrical signaling
P300 ERP CNS RESPONSE: positive deflection that occurs in the parietal region of the brain during recollection
Approximately 300-800ms after the presentation of a rare and meaningful stimulus, within a series that includes frequently presented/less meaningful irrelevant stimuli
Complex TRial Protocol
Involves probe: evidence that is memorable and known only to the accused
Irrelevants: equally plausible alternatives to the probe stimulus
Targets and Non Targets: irreverent stimuli that require unique responses
Two Trial Presentation per Sequence: T 1 + T 2 = full sequence, presented many times over and over again
T 1: reduces the susceptibility of this protocol to countermeasures, button press L on mouse regardless of whether the participant sees the probe item
T2: attention task, clicking right for the target and left for non-target, hold attention and decreases cognitive load to maximize the p300 amplitude
P300 AMPLITUDE IS GREATER FOR PROBE THAN IRRELEVANT STIMULI IN GUILTY PARTICIPANTS: EVEN THOUGH THEY TRIED TO LIE, THEIR BRAIN GAVE THEM AWAY
P300 AMPLITUDE IS THE SAME FOR PARTICIPANTS THAT WERE UNKNOWLEDGEABLE PROBE STIMULUS
PROBLEM, KNOWLEDGEABLE INNOCENT CONDITION: test doesn’t distinguish HOW you know about something or not, which doesn’t help with figuring out whether someone is guilty
P300 Measurement
The P300 (P3) wave is an event-related potential (ERP) component elicited in the process of decision making. It is considered to be an endogenous potential, as its occurrence links not to the physical attributes of a stimulus, but to a person’s reaction to it. More specifically, the P300 is thought to reflect processes involved in stimulus evaluation or categorization.
It is usually elicited using the oddball paradigm, in which low-probability target items are mixed with high-probability non-target (or “standard”) items. When recorded by electroencephalography (EEG), it surfaces as a positive deflection in voltage with a latency (delay between stimulus and response) of roughly 250 to 500 ms.[3] In the scientific literature a differentiation is often made in the P3, which is divided according to time: Early P3 window (300-400 ms) and Late P3 window (380-440 ms).[4]
