Amnesia and crime: How much do we really know?

Schacter, Daniel L.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.3.286

Cited by 91 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This research has attempted to create an experimental analogue of focal retrograde amnesia, whereby defendants claim amnesia for a crime. As Schacter (1986) previously noted, we cannot know if these experimental results can generalize to actual cases. However, to the extent that laboratory procedures can successfully capture the processes underlying human memory performance, the laboratory studies of feigned amnesia suggest that faking amnesia for a crime will not impair a person's memory for that crime when that person later seeks to remember it accurately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…These claims of "focal retrograde amnesia," whereby individuals report a relatively isolated, permanent memory loss for autobiographical events associated with a specific crime, can occur at rates of 25%-45% when defendants are charged with murder (Kopelman, 1995). Because genuine cases of focal retrograde amnesia in neurological patients are rare, researchers suspect that many defendants who present this memory problem when charged with a crime are actually feigning amnesia to avoid legal responsibility, especially when they face substantial incriminating evidence (see Cercy, Schretlen, & Brandt, 1997;Pyszora, Barker, & Kopelman, 2003;Rubinsky & Brandt, 1986;and Schacter, 1986, for reviews). In many of these instances, the individuals claim that the memory loss was due to their use of alcohol or drugs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does feigning amnesia impair subsequent recall?

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defendants who are accused of serious crimes sometimes feign amnesia to evade criminal responsibility. Previous research has suggested that feigning amnesia might impair subsequent recall. In two experiments, participants read and heard a story about a central character, described as "you," who was responsible for the death of either a puppy (Experiment 1) or a friend (Experiment 2). On free and cued recall tests immediately after the story, participants who had feigned amnesia recalled less than did participants who had recalled accurately. One week later, when all participants recalled accurately, participants who had previously feigned amnesia still performed worse than did participants who had recalled accurately both times. However, the participants who had formerly feigned amnesia did not perform worse than did a control group who had received only the delayed recall tests. Our results suggest that a "feigned amnesia effect" may reflect nothing more than differential practice at recall. Feigning amnesia for a crime need not impair memory for that crime when a person later seeks to remember accurately.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does feigning amnesia impair subsequent recall?

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, only a small percentage of memory researchers focus on illusory memories; most explore the forgetting, retention, and retrieval of accurate memories. There are also large literatures on functional and organic amnesia (Morton, page 389;Schacter, 1986;Squire and Butters, 1992) and a substantial body of work on the relationship between stress and memory (see Christiansen, 1992, for a review). There has also been considerable interest in the phenomenon of 'directed forgetting', in which instructions to forget studied materials impair memory of those materials (Bjork, 1989;Vokey and Allen, 1994).…”

Section: Cognitive Psychology Of Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving toward a middle ground on the ‘false memory debate’: Reply to commentaries on lindsay and read

Read

Lindsay

1994

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This rejoinder to the six commentaries on Lindsay and Read (this issue) focuses primarily on responding to criticisms levelled by some of the commentators, We clarify and elaborate upon the grounds for believing that some mental health practitioners use highly suggestive memory recovery therapies and that such therapies can lead some clients to develop illusory memories or false beliefs about childhood sexual abuse. 'We also comment on Pezdek's ideas concerning signal detection theory, Morton's application of the Headed Records model to amnesia and Multiple Personality Disorder, and to Sales, Shuman, and O'Connor's discussion of courtroom standards for the admissibility of expert psychological testimony.Completion of this special issue required considerable effort over a short period of time, and the success of this endeavour is due in large measure to the eight people who developed the six commentaries and to the work of Guest Co-Editor Lisa Grossman and North American Editor Mike Pressley. The commentaries were requested and received at very short notice, a reflection of th.e substantial and urgent interest in the 'false memory debate'. We thank all of the commentators for their contributions, and for give-and-take informal discussions a,long the way, and trust that our comments here reflect our respect for their work.The six commentaries vary in the extent to which they focus on the specific claims and arguments made in the Lindsay and Read a.rticle. Ceci and Loftus directed attention to some of our points and, while in agreement with them, highlighted and added to those arguments. Morton described how the Headed Records model of memory (Morton, 1991; Morton, Hammersley, and Bekerian, 1989) can be used to explain amnesia for traumatic experiences and amnesia in Multiple Personality Disorder. Sales, Shuman, and O'Connor, and Cohler approached the topic of memory *Work on this article was supported by a grant from the Alberta Law Foundation to J. Don ReadWe thank Moira Cairnes for helpful suggestions on this manuscript.

show abstract

“…The assertion that stress can cause amnesia for autobiographical content is consistent with reports of trauma-induced amnesia dating back at least to the time of James (1884), Janet (1889Janet ( , 1893Janet ( , 1909, and Charcot (1887). Partial or complete amnesia has been reported by a substantial number of people following combat exposure, torture, kidnapping, experience in concentration camps, murder, and physical or sexual abuse (Archibald & Tuddenham, 1956;Briere & Conte, 1993;Burkett & Bruno, 1993;Elliot & Briere, 1995;Goldield, Mollica, Pesavento, & Faraone, 1988;Grinker & Spiegel, 1945;Hendin, Haas, & Singer, 1984;Herman & Schatzow, 1987;Kardiner, 1941;Kinzie, 1993;Kubie, 1943;Loftus, Polensky, & Fullilove, 1994;Madakasira & O'Brian, 1987;Myers, 1940;Niedefland, 1968;Sargeant & Slater, 1941;D. L. Schacter, 1986;Sonnenberg, Blank, & Talbot, 1985;Southard, 1919;Thom& Fenton, 1920;van der Kolk & Kadish, 1987;Wilkinson, 1983;Williams 1994Williams , 1995.…”

Section: From Disaggregated To Re-aggregated (Recovered) Memoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neurobiology of reconstructed memory.

Jacobs¹,

Nadel²

1998

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors present evidence that normal autobiographical memories and "recovered" autobiographical memories of long-forgotten traumatic events are produced by the same mechanisms. The basic process involves the parallel storage of information in a set of independent modules, the selective retrieval and reaggregation of this dispersed information within an appropriate spatiotemporal context, and the organization of this aggregate by a narrative. The result is a seamless blend of retrieved information (that which is recalled) and knowledge (that which is inferred) experienced as an autobiographical memory. The critical difference between normal and recovered memories, by this account, is the impact of trauma on the storage process: The physiological consequences of trauma can include a disabling of the neural module responsible for encoding the appropriate spatiotemporal context. Recovered memory involves retrieval of memory fragments, confabulation (innocent or not) driven by inference, and the fitting of a context to this incomplete aggregate. This too is experienced as an autobiographical memory. The implications of this view for estimating the veridicality of recovered memories are discussed.Background

show abstract

Amnesia and crime: How much do we really know?

Cited by 91 publications

References 85 publications

Does feigning amnesia impair subsequent recall?

Does feigning amnesia impair subsequent recall?

Moving toward a middle ground on the ‘false memory debate’: Reply to commentaries on lindsay and read

Neurobiology of reconstructed memory.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About