Cited by 38Memory Processes and InfluencesDeception detection and forensic psychologyJury Decision Making Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fuzzy-Trace Theory, False Memory, and the Law

Open access
Brainerd, C. J., Reyna, Valerie F.·2019·Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

Abstract

Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) provides well-researched scientific principles that explain worrisome forms of false memory in the law. False memories are of great legal concern because memory reports are frequently the evidence that determines guilt/innocence and are sometimes the only evidence that crimes have been committed. FTT’s principles reveal errors in commonsense theories that jurors use to judge the credibility of witnesses’ memory reports. This science versus commonsense disconnect is salient in cases involving child witnesses, eyewitness identifications, and confessions. The consequences of this disconnect for justice could be ameliorated by a simple change in federal rules of evidence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2372732218797143

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An increase in irrelevant associations might stem from increased incidental learning due to activation of hippocampal CB1 receptors.

    “An increase in irrelevant associations might stem from increased incidental learning due to activation of hippocampal CB1 receptors (12).”

    From Hazy memories in the courtroom: A review of alcohol and other drug effects on false memory and suggestibility (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

    The paper’s discussion of verbatim and gist memory (Name Description; page unavailable) addresses false memories, but not incidental learning or hippocampal CB1 receptors. Searches for those terms and for cannabinoid receptors found no passage addressing the proposed mechanism. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Hippocampal CB1 receptor activation might underlie the formation of incidental associations, which would predict an increase in false memories.

    “It has been suggested that hippocampal CB1 receptor activation might underlie the formation of incidental associations (12), which would predict an increase in false memories.”

    From Hazy memories in the courtroom: A review of alcohol and other drug effects on false memory and suggestibility (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

    The paper’s Fuzzy-Trace Theory discussion (page unavailable) explains false memories through gist and verbatim retrieval, not hippocampal CB1 receptor activation. Searches for CB1, hippocampal cannabinoid receptors, and incidental associations found no passage addressing the mechanism attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Armstong K., 2001, Chicago Tribune
  2. Brainerd C. J., Emotion
  3. Brown D. A., 2017, Paper presented at American Psychology and Law Society
  4. Ceci S. J., 1995, Jeopardy in the courtroom
  5. Ceci S. J., 2000, Cornell Law Review, 86, 33
  6. Haber R. N., 2001, Paper presented at Psychonomic Society
  7. Laney C., 2010, Emotion and the law, 157
  8. McAuliff B. D., 2007, Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development
  9. Reyna V. F., 2011, Developmental Review, 31, 180
  10. Saks M. J., 2018, Monitor on Psychology, 49, 7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Brainerd, C. J.
Venue
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences
Published
2019-03
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
79-86
ISSN
  • 2372-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 2372-7330
OpenAlex
W2921733245
Cited by
35
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2
FWCI
2.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
Funders
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (1536238)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
Keywords
fuzzy-trace theory, false memory, evidence law, eyewitness identification, child witnesses, confession, Federal Rules of Evidence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review