Uno de los principales fenómenos que ha estudiado la psicología del testimonio tiene que ver con las transformaciones que ocurren en la memoria del testigo cuando éste, una vez observado el suceso o delito, entra en contacto con otras informaciones sobre el suceso. El fenómeno de «creación de nuevas memorias» (Loftus y Hoffman, 1989) o de «distorsiones sinceras de la realidad» (Loftus, Korf y Schooler, 1988) ha recibido una considerable atención experimental durante los últimos años, así como un importante debatí acerca d los mecanismos psicológicos que pueden explicar este fenómeno. El presente artículo revisa las principales evidencias experimentales que apoyan las diferentes explicaciones alternativas al efecto de la información posterior al suceso.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaJ. W. (1984). Nature of interference representation.American Journal of Psychology, 97, 215–233.
2.
BekerianD. A.BowersJ. M. (1983). Eyewitness testimony: were we misled?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 9, 139–145.
3.
BelliR. F. (1988). Color blend retrievals: compromise memories or deliberate compromise responses.Memory & Cognition, 16, 314–326.
4.
BelliR. F. (1989). Influences of misleading postevent information: misinformation, interference and acceptance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 72–85.
5.
CeciJ.RossD.TogliaM. (1987). Age differences in suggestibility: narrowing the uncertainties. EnCeciS. J.RossD.TogliaM. (Eds.), Children's eyewitness testimony (pp. 79–91), Nueva York, springer-Verlag.
6.
ChandlerC. C. (1989). Specific retroactive interference in modified recognition test: evidence for an unknow cause of interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 15, 256–265.
7.
ChandlerC. C. (1991). How memory for an event is influenced by related events: interference in modified recognition tests.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 115–125.
8.
ChristiaansenR. E.OchalekK. (1983). Editing misleading information from memory: evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information.Memory and Cognition, 11, 467–475.
9.
DoodD. H.BradshawJ. M. (1980). Leading questions and memory: pragmatic constraints.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 207–219.
10.
GreeneE.FlynnM. S.LoftusE. F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 207–219.
11.
HallD. F.LoftusE. F.TousignantJ. P. (1984). Postevent information and changes in recollection for a natural event. EnWellsG. L.LoftusE. F. (Eds.). Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 124–142). Cambridge. Cambridge university Press.
12.
HammersleyR.ReadJ. D. (1986). What is integration? Remembering a story and remembering false implications about the story.British Journal of Psychology, 77, 329–341.
13.
HoschH. M.LeippeM. R.MarchioniP. M.CooperD. S. (1984). Victimization, self-monitoring and eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 280–288.
14.
JohnsonM. K.LindsayD. S. (1986). Despite McCloskey and Zaragoza, suggestibility effects may reflect memory impairment.Manuscrito no publicado.
15.
JohnsonM. K.RayeC. L. (1981). Reality monitoring.Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.
16.
JohnsonM. K.RayeC. L.WangA. Y.TaylorT. H. (1979). Fact and fantasy: the roles of accuracy and variability in confusing imaginations with perceptual experiences.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 5, 229–240.
17.
LindsayD. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitness' ability to remember event details.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 1.077–1.083.
18.
LindsayD. S. (1991). CHARMed, but not convinced: comment on Metcalfe.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 101–105.
19.
LindsayD. S.JohnsonM. K. (1987): Reality monitoring and suggestibility: children's ability to discriminate among memories from different sources. En CeciS. J.TogliaM. P.RossD. F. (Eds.). Children's eyewitness testimony, 92–121. New York. Springer-Velag.
20.
LindsayD. S.JohnsonM. K. (1989): The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory and Cognition, 17, 349–358.
21.
LindsayR. C. L.WellsG. L.RumpelC. M. (1981): Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.
22.
LipscombT. J.BregmanN. J.McallisterH. A. (1985): A developmental inquiry into the effects of postevent information on eyewitness accounts. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 146, 551–556.
23.
LoftusE. F. (1975): Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572.
24.
LoftusE. F. (1977): Shifting human color memory. Memory and Cognition, 5, 696–699.
25.
LoftusE. F. (1979a): Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge. Massachusetts. Harvard University Pres s.
26.
LoftusE. F. (1979b): Reactions to blantantly contradictory information. Memory and Cognition, 1, 368–374.
27.
LoftusE. F.AltmanD.GeballeR. (1975): Effects of questioning upon a witness' later recollection. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 3, 162–165.
28.
LoftusE. F.DondersK.HoffmanH. G.SchoolerJ. W. (1989): Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held. Memory and Cognition, 17, 607–616.
29.
LoftusE. F.GreeneE. (1980): Warning: even memory for faces may be contagious. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 323–334.
30.
LoftusE. F.HoffmanH. G. (1989): Misinformation and memory: the creation of new memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 100–104.
31.
LoftusE. F.KorfN. L.SchoolerJ. W. (1988): Misguided memories: sincere distortions of reality. En YuilleJ. C. (Ed.). Credibility Assessment.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
32.
LoftusE. F.LoftusG. R. (1980): On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. American Psychologist, 35, 409–420.
33.
LoftusE. F.MillerD. G.BurnsH. J. (1978): Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Pschology: Human Memory and Learning, 4, 19–31.
34.
LoftusE. F.SchoolerJ. W.WagenaarW. A. (1985): The fate of memory: Comment of McCloskey and Zaragoza. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 375–380.
35.
LoftusE. F.ZanniG. (1975): Eyewitness testimony: the influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86–88.
36.
MccloskeyM.ZaragozaM. (1985a): Misleading postevent information and memory for events: arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypoteses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1–16.
37.
MccloskeyM.ZaragozaM. (1985b): Postevent information and memory: reply to Loftus, Schooler and Wagenaar. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 381–387.
38.
McgeochF. J. (1942): The psychology of human learning. New York. Longmans, Green.
39.
MetcalfeJ. (1990): Composite holographic associative recall model (CHARM) and blended memories in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 145–160.
40.
MetcalfeJ.BjorkR. A. (1991). Composite models never (well, hardly ever) compromise: reply to Schooler and Tanaka.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 203–210.
41.
MortonJ.HammersleyR. H.BekerianD. A. (1985). Headed records: a model for memory and its faliures.Cognition, 20, 1–23.
42.
NewmanP. G. (1977). Visual prototype formation with discontinuous representations of dimensions of variability.Memory and Cognition, 5, 187–197.
43.
PenrodS. D.LoftusE. F.WinklerJ. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony: a psychological perspective. EnBrayR.KerrN. (Eds.). The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 119–168). Nueva York. Plenum Press.
44.
PirolliP. L.MittererJ. O. (1984). The effect of leading questions on prior memory: evidence for the coexistence of inconsistent traces.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 135–141.
45.
ReadJ.BruceD. (1984). On the external validity of questioning effects in eyewitness testimony.International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 33–49.
46.
SchoolerJ. W.TanakaJ. W. (1991). Composites, compromises and CHARM: what is the evidence for blend memory representations?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 96–100.
47.
ShaughnessyJ. J.MandJ. L. (1982). How permanent are memories of real life events?American Journal of Psychology, 95, 51–63.
48.
SmithV. L.EllsworthP. C. (1987). The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: misleading questions and communicator expertise.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 294–300.
49.
TousignantJ. P.HallD.LoftusE. F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information.Memory and Cognition, 14, 329–338.
50.
TverskyB.Y TuchinM. (1987). Memory impairment by misleading postevent information: a reconciliation.Presentado en la reunión anual de la Psychonomic Society. Seattle. Washington.
51.
TverskyB.TuchinM. (1989). A reconciliation of the evidence on eyewitness testimony: comments on McCloskey and Zaragoza.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 86–91.
52.
WagenaarW. A. (1987). Evidence for parallel files in memory.Presentado a la reunión anual d la Psychonomic Society. seattle. Washington.
53.
WardR. A.LoftusE. F. (1985). Eyewitness performance in different psychological types.Journal of General Psychology, 112, 191–200.
54.
WeinbergH. I.WadsworthJ.BaronR. S. (1983): Demand and the impact of leading questions on eyewitness testimony. Memory and Cognition, 11, 101–104.
55.
WellsG. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: a system handbook. Carswell. Toronto.
56.
WellsG. L.FergusonT. J.LindsayR. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of facts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688–696.
57.
WellG. L.LindsayR. C. L. (1983). How do people infer the accuracy of eyewitness memory? Studies on performance and a metamemory analysis. EnLloyd-BostockS.CliffordB. R. (Eds.). Evaluating Witness Evidence: recent psychological research and new perspectives. Wiley and Sons. Chichester.
58.
WellsG. L.LindsayR. C. L.FergusonT. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.
59.
YttilleJ. C. (1980). A critical examination of the psychological and practical implications of eyewitness research.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 335–345.
60.
ZaragozaM.KoshmiderJ. W. (1989). Misled subjets may know more than their performance implies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 246–2 5 5.
61.
ZaragozaM.MccloskeyM. (1989). Misleading postevent information and the memory impairment hypothesis: comment on Belli and reply to Tversky and Tuchin.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 118, 92–99.
62.
ZaragozaM.MccloskeyM.JamisM. (1987). Misleading postevent information and recall of the original event: further evidence against the memory impairment hipothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 13, 36–44.
