Reality Monitoring: una revisión meta-analítica para la práctica forense

IF 7.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Yurena Gancedo, F. Rivera, María Dolores Lopezosa Martínez, Manuel Vilariño Vázquez, Ramón Arce Fernández
{"title":"Reality Monitoring: una revisión meta-analítica para la práctica forense","authors":"Yurena Gancedo, F. Rivera, María Dolores Lopezosa Martínez, Manuel Vilariño Vázquez, Ramón Arce Fernández","doi":"10.5093/EJPALC2021A10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reality Monitoring (RM) criteria has been proposed as a forensic tool in order to discern between perceived and imagined memories. However, no systematic evidence has been provided on its validity for use in testimony evaluation. Thus, a meta-analytic review was designed to study its validity in forensic setting. A total of 40 primary studies were found, yielding 251 effect sizes. Random-effects meta-analyses correcting the effect size for sampling error and criterion unreliability were performed. The results showed that the total RM score discriminated, d = 0.542 (δ = 0.562), between imagined and perceived memories of events. In relation to individual criteria, the results showed support for the model’s predictions (more external attributes in perceived memories) for clarity, d = 0.361 (δ = 0.399), sensory information, d = 0.359 (δ = 0.397), spatial information, d = 0.250 (δ = 0.277), time information, d = 0.509 (δ = 0.563), reconstructability of the story, d = 0.441 (δ = 0.488), and realism, d = 0.420 (δ = 0.464), but not for affective information, d = 0.024 [-0.081, 0.129]. Nevertheless, except for temporal information, the results are not generalized (negative effects may be found). For cognitive operations, the results corroborated, although the magnitude of the effect was lower than small, the hypothesis (more cognitive operations in imagined memories), d = -0.107 [-0.178, -0.036] (δ = -0.119). The moderating effects of age (more cognitive operations on imagined memories in adults, and on perceived memories in underage), evocation type (external attributes discern between imagined and perceived memories, in both self-experienced and non-experimented accounts), and criteria score (the results varied by score) moderators were studied. As conclusions, forensic implications for the validity of the RM technique in court proceedings are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/EJPALC2021A10","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Reality Monitoring (RM) criteria has been proposed as a forensic tool in order to discern between perceived and imagined memories. However, no systematic evidence has been provided on its validity for use in testimony evaluation. Thus, a meta-analytic review was designed to study its validity in forensic setting. A total of 40 primary studies were found, yielding 251 effect sizes. Random-effects meta-analyses correcting the effect size for sampling error and criterion unreliability were performed. The results showed that the total RM score discriminated, d = 0.542 (δ = 0.562), between imagined and perceived memories of events. In relation to individual criteria, the results showed support for the model’s predictions (more external attributes in perceived memories) for clarity, d = 0.361 (δ = 0.399), sensory information, d = 0.359 (δ = 0.397), spatial information, d = 0.250 (δ = 0.277), time information, d = 0.509 (δ = 0.563), reconstructability of the story, d = 0.441 (δ = 0.488), and realism, d = 0.420 (δ = 0.464), but not for affective information, d = 0.024 [-0.081, 0.129]. Nevertheless, except for temporal information, the results are not generalized (negative effects may be found). For cognitive operations, the results corroborated, although the magnitude of the effect was lower than small, the hypothesis (more cognitive operations in imagined memories), d = -0.107 [-0.178, -0.036] (δ = -0.119). The moderating effects of age (more cognitive operations on imagined memories in adults, and on perceived memories in underage), evocation type (external attributes discern between imagined and perceived memories, in both self-experienced and non-experimented accounts), and criteria score (the results varied by score) moderators were studied. As conclusions, forensic implications for the validity of the RM technique in court proceedings are discussed.
现实监测:法医实践的元分析综述
现实监测(RM)标准已被提出作为一种法医工具,以区分感知和想象的记忆。然而,目前尚无系统的证据证明其在证言评价中的有效性。因此,我们设计了一项荟萃分析综述来研究其在法医环境中的有效性。总共发现了40项初步研究,产生了251个效应值。随机效应荟萃分析校正了抽样误差和标准不可靠性的效应量。结果表明,在事件的想象记忆和知觉记忆之间,总RM得分存在区别,d = 0.542 (δ = 0.562)。相对于个人标准,结果显示支持模型的预测(更多的外部属性感知记忆)清晰、d = 0.361(δ= 0.399),感觉信息,d = 0.359(δ= 0.397),空间信息,d = 0.250(δ= 0.277),时间信息,d = 0.509(δ= 0.563),reconstructability的故事,d = 0.441(δ= 0.488),和现实主义,d = 0.420(δ= 0.464),但不是情感信息,d = 0.024(-0.081, 0.129)。然而,除了时间信息外,结果不是一般化的(可能会发现负面影响)。对于认知操作,结果证实,尽管影响的幅度小于小,假设(更多的认知操作在想象记忆中),d = -0.107 [-0.178, -0.036] (δ = -0.119)。研究了年龄(成人对想象记忆的认知操作较多,未成年人对感知记忆的认知操作较多)、唤起类型(在自我体验和非实验两种情况下,对想象记忆和感知记忆的外部属性区分)和标准得分(结果随得分而变化)的调节作用。作为结论,对法庭诉讼中RM技术有效性的法医学含义进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信