Memory on trial Investigating the robustness of legally relevant memory phenomena

Witness testimony is crucial in legal proceedings but prone to errors. Statistics from exoneration projects highlight the impact of false witness accounts, underscoring the need for rigorous validation of such evidence to protect the innocent and uphold justice. Legal psychology addresses these challenges, using psychological insights to enhance legal processes. However, the credibility of psychological research has been questioned since the 2011 replication crisis. Therefore, this thesis re-evaluated the robustness of three legally relevant memory phenomena using advanced methods to solidify conclusions about their existence, size, mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Chapter 2 investigated suppression-induced forgetting using the Think/No-Think paradigm but found no evidence for this phenomenon, raising questions about its robustness. Chapter 3 examined the impact of emotion on false memory using the Deese-Roediger-McDermott paradigm, finding that negative valence affects false memories differently in recall and recognition, partially influenced by response biases. Chapter 4 replicated the misinformation effect, finding increased support for a single-trace mechanism of false memory formation, where new information overwrites original memories. Chapter 5 reviewed the adoption of open science practices in false memory research, revealing overall growth in open science use. Yet, differential adoption between measures raised concerns about the efficacy of partial adoption. The dissertation concludes that establishing robust evidence involves detailed evaluation methodologies and understanding the phenomena’s existence and boundary conditions. Future research should use advanced technologies and focus on real-life memory representations to further bridge the gap between theoretical understanding and practical application, ensuring a legal system grounded in robust scientific evidence.