Citation

Holst VF, Pezdek K. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1992; 6(7): 573-587.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1992, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1002/acp.2350060702

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

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.

Language: en