conclu

The podcast discusses how different ethics can impact judicial trials. Studies show how suggestive language can affect memory accuracy, especially in court cases where testimonies are crucial. The fake celebrity study reveals how information can be recognized but the source forgotten. The weapon focus effect and false memories further highlight memory unreliability. Source monitoring errors can lead to dangerous false memories. Memory is compared to a Wikipedia page, subject to changes. The host, Annie, thanks the guest, Noah, and ends with a quote from Elisabeth Loftus. Now I'm aware that this podcast was a bit heavy with the information presented so I'm going to ask you Noah, can you walk us through how the different ethics may or may not influence judicial trials? Yeah it's a lot to wrap our head around obviously so we could try to simplify it a bit. Okay firstly we had Lefse's first two groundbreaking studies, the ones with the cars right? Right, in the first study we observed that suggestive phrasing in questions could influence how one remembers an event such as the speed of a crash or the presence of glass. In the second study we examined a similar effect but we also highlighted the importance of time. The longer the delay between the original event and the misleading information, the greater the influence. So how exactly could these impact court cases? These studies show how the use of suggestive vocabulary can be highly impactful on judicial context. Whether used by an officer, a detective, or a lawyer intentionally or not, fragile memories are at stake. Court cases often rely on testimonies from victims and witnesses that occur months after the crime. This makes them even more vulnerable to suggestibility effects that could alter the accuracy of the information. Cool, cool. So afterwards we had the fake celebrity study which implied that we can recognize information like a name but not remember the source of that information, right? Exactly, in that experiment there were absolutely no misleading information. So the suggestibility effect was more fabricated by the participants themselves. Also what was that other effect when the witness is drawn to the weapon? Right, the weapon focus effect. This is somewhat similar to the absent-mindedness sin we mentioned earlier in the podcast. In high-stress situations people naturally focus their attention on the threatening object which is the weapon. As a result, less attention is directed towards the person holding the weapon or the environment around them which can greatly reduce the reliability of eyewitnesses' description. Afterwards we talked about false memories that were completely fabricated by researchers which seems like a much stronger form of suggestibility. It's definitely a step beyond basic suggestibility. Source monitoring errors can be particularly dangerous outside of harmless childhood contexts. As we discussed, for various reasons including different therapy techniques, people may come to believe... As we discussed, for various reasons including different therapy sessions, people may come to believe in... It's definitely a step beyond basic suggestibility. Source monitoring errors can be particularly dangerous outside of harmless childhood contexts. As we discussed, for various reasons including different therapy techniques, people may come to believe in entirely false yet very convincing memories. That seems to wrap up the thought process behind the various studies we've analyzed and their judicial implications. Before we leave I wanted to thank you again Noah for sharing your thoughts and knowledge with us. You're welcome. It was really fun to be here. Thank you. That said, I did a bit of homework myself before having you here so I wanted to end this podcast with one last quote from none other than Elisabeth Loftus. Memory is like a Wikipedia page, you can go in there and change it but so can other people. Thank you all for listening to this episode of Secrets of the Mind. I'm your host Annie and I'll see you next week. Yay!