ArticleScientific reports2024
Knowledge of legal professionals about age trends in false memory propensity: a vignette study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professionals who evaluate witness testimony must understand the developmental factors that can affect statements credibility. This online vignette study investigated in how far 102 legal professionals (e.g., judges, attorneys, and police officers) were aware of age-related differences in false memory formation (e.g., the developmental reversal effect). Swedish, Norwegian, and Dutch legal professionals received a case vignette about a female who had witnessed her mother's murder. We manipulated witness age (6 versus 22 years old) and disclosure (spontaneous versus suggestion-induced). Legal professionals rated the case and statement on several credibility, metacognition, and belief items. Main effects of both age and disclosure indicated that professionals were statistically more likely to assume that the case referred to a false memory when the witness was 6 (versus 22) years old and when the witness had talked to her grandmother (versus spontaneous statement) before her disclosure to the police. The 6-year-old witness was rated as more reliable than the 22-year-old witness. Professionals were more likely to consider the opinion of a memory expert when the witness was 6 years old rather than 22 years old. This study emphasizes the need for raising awareness among legal professionals about developmental factors related to validity assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.