Scripts for typical crimes and their effects on memory for eyewitness testimony

The effect of scripts on memory for information presented as eyewitness testimony in a mock criminal trial was tested. In Experiment 1 the nature of people's scripts for three types of robberies was examined. There was a high rate of agreement in a heterogeneous sample of 247 people regarding the actions that comprise a typical robbery of each type. In Experiment 2 the effects of people's robbery scripts and the effects of leading questions by the attorney on memory were probed. An audio-recording of a mock trial was presented in which some of the script-relevant actions from Experiment 1 were stated by the eyewitness and some were unstated. One week later a significant number of unstated items were recalled and recognized as having been stated. Further, unstated actions mentioned in ‘misleading’ questions by the attorney were recalled as having been stated by the eyewitness, and cautionary instructions warning of the possible misleading effect of the attorney's questions did not significantly reduce this misleading effect. Thus, people have scripts in memory for typical robberies, and when such scripts are activated people incorporate into their memory script-relevant information not presented, along with information presented. Moreover, most people do not differentiate between information presented by the eyewitness versus the attorney. These results have practical implications for the way jurors process and remember trial testimony.

[1]  John B. Black,et al.  Scripts in memory for text , 1979, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Can People Detect Eyewitness-Identification Accuracy Within and Across Situations? , 1981 .

[3]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Structures and Procedures of Implicit Knowledge , 1985 .

[4]  Kathy Pezdek,et al.  Cross-Modality Semantic Integration of Sentence and Picture Memory. , 1977 .

[5]  E. Loftus,et al.  Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory , 1974 .

[6]  J. A. List.  Age and schematic differences in the reliability of eyewitness testimony. , 1986 .

[7]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Contrasting the representation of scripts and categories , 1985 .

[8]  A. Bandura,et al.  Imitation of film-mediated agressive models. , 1963, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[9]  Memory for pragmatic implications from courtroom testimony , 1975 .

[10]  Elizabeth F Loftus,et al.  Leading questions and the eyewitness report , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[11]  J. Mandler.  Stories, Scripts, and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory , 1984 .

[12]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Inducing Resistance to Misleading Information. , 1982 .

[13]  Roger C. Schank,et al.  SCRIPTS, PLANS, GOALS, AND UNDERSTANDING , 1988 .

[14]  R. Harris.  Comprehension of pragmatic implications in advertising. , 1977 .

[15]  R. Lindsay,et al.  Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony , 1980 .

[16]  K Pezdek,et al.  Life-span differences in semantic integration of pictures and sentences in memory. , 1980, Child development.

[17]  Kathy Pezdek,et al.  Memory for Real-World Scenes: The Role of Consistency With Schema Expectation , 1989 .

[18]  R. Christiaansen,et al.  Editing misleading information from memory: Evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information , 1983, Memory & cognition.