La calidad del testimonio de un testigo depende tanto de su exactitud como de su credibilidad. Sin embargo, hasta la fecha la mayor parte de las investigaciones sólo se habían ocupado de la exactitud de testigos y testimonios.
Partiendo del concepto de metamemoria se analizan las creencias sobre la memoria de los testigos, presentando dos estudios interrelacionados.
En el primero, en el que participan 333 sujetos, se ponen a prueba dos hipótesis: que las personas con experiencia en testimonio por su profesión (p. e. policías) poseen más ideas intuitivas acertadas sobre memoria de testigos que las personas sin esa experiencia; la segunda, que las personas con concimientos sobre memoria (p. e. estudiantes de psicología) poseer más ideas intuitivas ciertas sobre memoria de testigos que las personas sin esos conocimientos.
Los resultados del primer estudio apoyan solo la segunda hipótesis.
El segundo estudio, con 42 policías, valora la eficacia de un procedimiento para entrenar a policías como expertos en testimonio, con resultados positivos.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarttletF. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.Londres: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BoonJ.DaviesG. (1988). Attitudinal influences on witness Memory: Fact and fiction. En:GrunebergMorrisSykes (Eds.) Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues. Vol. I, Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
BorgidaE.WhiteP. (1978). Social perception of rape victims: the impact of legal reform.Law & Human Behavior, 2, 339–352.
4.
CavanaughJ.PerlmutterM. (1982). Metamemory: a critical examination.Chad Development, 53, 11–28.
5.
CliffordB.BullR. (1978). The Psychology of Person Identification.Londres: Routledge and Kegan Paul, LTD.
6.
DaviesG.ShepherdJ.EllisH. (1981). Perceiving and remembering faces.Londres: Academic Press.
7.
EfranM. (1974). The effect of physical attractiveness on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishement in a simulated jury task.Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45–54.
8.
FisherR.GeiselmanR. (1988). Enhacing eyewitness memory with the Cognitive Interview. En:GrunebergM.MorrisP.SykesR. (Eds.) Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues. Vol. I, Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
FlaveleJ. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. En:ResnickL. (Ed.) The nature of intelligence.Hillsdale, Nueva York: Erlbaum.
10.
FeaveelJ. (1977). El desarrollo cognitivo.Madrid: Visor Libros.
11.
FlavellJ.WellmanH. (1977). Metamemory. En:KailR.HagenJ. (Eds.) Perspectives on the developmentt of memory and cognition.Hillsdale, Nueva York: Erlbaum.
12.
GrusingR.GordonM. (1975). Policeman or priest which one's testimony will most influence jurors?Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 32–38.
13.
HartJ. (1967). Memory and the memory-monitoring process.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 685–691.
14.
JohnsonM. (1977). What is being counted none the less? En:BirnbaumI.ParkerE. (Eds.). Alcohol and Human Behavior.Hillsdale, Nueva York: Erlbaum.
15.
JohnsonM.KahanT.RayeC. (1984). Dreams and reality monitoring.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 329–344.
JonesC.AronsonE. (1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415–419.
18.
KailR. (1979). El desarrollo de la memoria en los niños.Barcelona: Editorial Siglo XXI.
19.
KaplanM.MillerL. (1978). Effects of juror's identification with the victim depend on likelihood of victimization.Law & Human Behavior, 2, 353–361.
20.
KrulewitzJ. E.NashJ. E. (1979). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome, and sex of observar on attributions about rape.Journal of Personality, 557–574.
21.
LindE.ConleyJ.EriksonB.BarrO. (1978). Social attributions and conservation style in trial testimony.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1558–1567.
22.
LindsayR.LimR.MarandoL.CullyD. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: a test of metamemory hypothesis.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447–459.
23.
LoftusE. (1979). Eyewitness TestimonyCambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.
24.
LovelaceE. A. (1984a). Metamemory: monitoring future recallability during study.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 756–766.
25.
LovelaceE. A. (1984b). Metamemory: monitoring future recallibility in free and recall.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 497–500.
26.
Lloyd-BostockS.CliffordB. (Eds.) (1983). Evaluating witness evidence.Nueva York: John Wiley & son Ltd.
27.
MahoneyA. (1978). Sexism in voir dire. The use of sex stereotypes in jury selection. En:HepperleW.CritesL. (Eds.) Women in the Courts National Center for State Courts Publications Department, Williamsburg.
28.
MarchesiA. (1984). El desarrollo de la memoria. En:PalaciosJ.MarchesiA.CarreteroM. (Eds.) Psicología evolutiva. Tomo II, Madrid: Alianza Universidad Textos.
29.
MarkwartA.LynchB. (1979). Effect of polygraph evidence on mock jury decisionmaking.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 324–332.
30.
MiraJ. J. (1989). Estudios de Psicología en ambientes procesales: Un análisis de metamemoria. Tesis Doctoral Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
31.
PiehlJ. (1977). Integration of information in the Courts: influence of physical attractiveness on amount of punishment for a traffic offender.Psychologicxal Report, 41, 551–556.
32.
SchacterD. (1986). Feeling of knowing ratings distinguish between genuine and simulated forgetting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 27–38.
33.
SchoolerJ.GerhardD.LoftusE. (1986). Qualities of unreal.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 171–181.
34.
ThomsonD. M. (1988). Eyewitness identification: Can Jurors assess its accuracy? En:GrunebergMorrisSykes (Eds.) Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues. Vol. I, Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons.
35.
ThorntonB. (1972). Effects of rape victim's attrativeness on a jury simulation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 211–218.
36.
VidmarN. (1979). The other issues in jury simulation research: A commentary with particular reference to defendant character studies.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 95–106.
37.
WellsG. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.
38.
WellsG.LindsayR. (1985). How do people infer the accuracy of eyewitness memory? Studies of performance and a metamemory analysis. En:Lloyd-BostockS.CliffordB. (Eds.) Evaluating witness evidence, Recent Psychological research and new perspectives.Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons.
39.
WellsG.LindsayR.TousignantJ. (1980). Efects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony.Law & Human Behaviour, 4, 275–285.
40.
WellsG.LoftusE. (Eds.) (1984). Eyewitness Testimony, Psychological perspectives.Londres: Cambridge University Press.
41.
YarmkyA. D. (1979). The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony.Nueva York: Free Press.
42.
YarmeyA. D.JonesH. P. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? En:Lloyd-BostockS.VliffordB. (Eds.) Evaluating witness evidence. Recent Psychological research and new perspectives.Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons.
