The Mnemonic Consequences of Jurors' Selective Retrieval During Deliberation.
Collaborativeremembering
Collectivememory
Decision making
Forgetting
Jurydeliberation
RIF
RIFA
Selectiveretrieval
Journal
Topics in cognitive science
ISSN: 1756-8765
Titre abrégé: Top Cogn Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101506764
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
received:
06
05
2019
revised:
13
05
2019
accepted:
13
05
2019
pubmed:
25
6
2019
medline:
20
8
2020
entrez:
25
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The jury is a defining component of the American criminal justice system, and the courts largely assume that the collaborative nature of jury deliberations will enhance jurors' memory for important trial information. However, research suggests that this kind of collaboration, although sometimes improving memory, can also lead to incomplete and inaccurate "collective" memories. The present research examines whether jury deliberations, where individuals collaboratively recall and discuss trial evidence to render unanimous verdicts, might shape jurors' memories through the robust phenomena of Within-Individual and Socially Shared Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (WI-RIF and SS-RIF, respectively). The results revealed no WI-RIF or SS-RIF. However, we did find evidence in the direction of Within-Individual and Socially-shared Retrieval Induced Facilitation (WI-RIFA and SS-RIFA, respectively) in speakers' and listeners' narrative and open-ended recall of evidentiary details. The present results are discussed in terms of whether jurors' goals during deliberation and the deliberation structure (e.g., six or more discussants) protect against forgetting, or whether possible methodological issues (e.g., the vast amount of information presented) eliminated WI-RIF and SS-RIF and, in turn, make drawing conclusions surrounding the mnemonic impact of jury deliberation difficult. Regardless, the present results suggest jury deliberations are quite limited in terms of how much evidence is actually discussed compared to the total of what could be discussed, and our methodology provides an ecologically valid baseline for future research to better understand the mnemonic consequences associated with jury deliberations and, in turn, jury decision making.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
627-643Informations de copyright
© 2019 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.
Références
Abel, M., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2015). Selective memory retrieval in social groups: When silence is golden and when it is not. Cognition, 140, 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.009.
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 1063-1087. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.5.1063.
Anderson, M. C., & Levy, B. J. (2002). Inhibitory processes and the control of memory retrieval. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01923-X.
Anderson, M. C., & McCulloch, K. C. (1999). Integration as a general boundary condition on retrieval-induced forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 608-629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.3.608.
Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U. S. 223 (1978).
Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law & Human Behavior, 23, 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441.
Bornstein, B. H. (2017). Jury simulation research: Pros, cons, trends, and alternatives. In M. Bull-Kovera(Ed.), Psychology of Juries (pp. 283-312). New York: American Psychological Association.
Chan, J. C. (2009). When does retrieval induce forgetting and when does it induce facilitation? Implications for retrieval inhibition, testing effect, and text processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.04.004.
Chan, J. C., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2006). Retrieval-induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 553-571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.553.
Coman, A., & Hirst, W. (2015). Relational motives and socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting: The role of author’s presence in acts of communication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144, 717-722. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000077.
Cuc, A., Koppel, J., & Hirst, W. (2007). Silence in not golden: A case for socially-shared, retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Science, 18, 727-733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01967.x.
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 496-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01161.x.
Garcia-Bajos, E., Migueles, M., & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Script knowledge modulates retrieval-induced forgetting for eyewitness events. Memory, 17(1), 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210802572454.
Hirst, W., & Echterhoff, G. (2012). Remembering in conversations: The social sharing and reshaping of memories. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 55-79. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100340.
Koppel, J., Wohl, D., Meksin, R., & Hirst, W. (2014). The effect of listening to others remember on subsequent memory: The roles of expertise and trust in socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting and social contagion. Social Cognition, 32, 148-180. 10/1521/soco.2014.32.2.148.
Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Boyle, M. M. (1995). Collaboration in recall: Do pairs of people cross-cue each other to produce new memories? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 141-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401381.
Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Kirby, P. (1992). Are two heads better than one? Experimental investigations of the social facilitation of memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 525-543. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350060606.
Mize, G. E., Hannaford-Agor, P., & Waters, N. L. (2007). The state-of-the-states survey of jury improvement: A compendium report. National Center for States Courts. http://www.ncsconline.org/d_research/cjs/pdf/SOSCompendiumFinal.pdf.
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). A theory of explanation-based decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & E. C. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: Models and methods (pp. 188-201). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Rajaram, S. (2011). Collaboration both hurts and helps memory: A cognitive perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 76-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411403251.
Rajaram, S., & Pereira-Pasarin, L. P. (2010). Collaborative memory: Cognitive research and theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 649-663. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388763.
The State of New Jersey v. Daniel Bias, 152 N.J. 361 (1998).
Stone, C. B., Barnier, A. J., Sutton, J., & Hirst, W. (2010). Building consensus about the past: Schema consistency and convergence in socially shared retrieval-induced forgetting. Memory, 18, 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210903159003.
U.S. v. Montgomery. 150 F.3d 983, 999-1000 (1998).
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S., 78 (1970).