Snap Shot
- The question: How do emotion, acute stress, and trauma affect what a witness, complainant, or accused person remembers, and how much does a vivid, emotional, or distressed account reveal about its accuracy?
- What the research shows: Emotional arousal generally strengthens memory for the gist and central features of an event, a pattern tied in animal and human research to amygdala activity and stress hormones. High stress at encoding lowers eyewitness identification and recall accuracy on average, and the direction of stress effects depends on timing. Real traumatic events are often, but not always, well remembered in their core, yet those memories remain open to misinformation and change.
- What it does not show: Vividness, confidence, and emotional intensity do not establish accuracy, and the central-versus-peripheral pattern is conditional, because “central” is defined inconsistently and some studies find no trade-off. Whether trauma memories are fragmented is disputed. Group research cannot say whether a particular person’s memory of a particular event is accurate.
- The law: Stress bears on the Neil v. Biggers factors of opportunity to view and degree of attention, and on reliability under Mil. R. Evid. 321. Expert testimony is governed by Rule 702, Houser, and in Arizona by Chapple and Salazar-Mercado, and it may not vouch for or against a particular witness.
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors can show that peripheral gaps are consistent with genuine experience, without treating distress or vividness as proof of accuracy; defense counsel can show how stress and attention limit identifications and detail, without arguing that trauma makes an account false or that a coherent account is rehearsed.
Nearly every event that reaches a courtroom was emotional for the people who lived through it, and many were frightening or traumatic. Many people assume that emotion engraves an event in memory, so that a vivid, confident, emotional account must be accurate; others assume that fear scrambles memory, so that a frightened witness cannot be trusted. Both intuitions capture part of the research, and both overstate it.
The question reaches court in many forms: a robbery victim who identifies a stranger after a few terrifying seconds, a sexual assault complainant whose account of the assault is clear but whose account of surrounding details is incomplete, and an accused person whose recollection of a violent confrontation is partial. Experts may be asked why emotion helps some parts of a memory and harms others, how stress affects identification, and whether trauma changes how an event is stored. False memory in trauma samples, repression, flashbulb memories, and weapon focus have their own papers in this hub.
Emotion and Memory for the Core of an Event
Emotional events are generally remembered better than neutral ones, particularly their gist and central features. A classic review concluded that the central details of emotional events tend to be well retained, sometimes declining less over time than comparable neutral material, and cautioned that the view that stress simply impairs memory is too simple, because effects depend on the event, the detail, and the timing of the test (Christianson, 1992). A later forensic review reached a similar conclusion (Reisberg & Heuer, 2007).
A major review concluded that the amygdala, particularly its basolateral region, modulates the consolidation of long-term memories of emotionally arousing experiences by mediating the effects of adrenal stress hormones and other neuromodulators (McGaugh, 2004). Much of that evidence is animal research, in which rats received hormones or drugs after training or had selective amygdala lesions. The human evidence is consistent but more limited: amygdala activation during encoding of emotional material correlates with later recall in imaging studies (McGaugh, 2004), and a drug that blocks beta-adrenergic receptors impaired memory for an emotionally arousing story but not for a matched neutral story (Cahill et al., 1994). This research explains why emotional experiences are often well remembered; it addresses the strength of a memory, not whether every detail is correct.
Emotion also makes memories feel vivid. In one set of studies, how intensely people had felt an emotion, rather than which emotion it was, predicted how vivid they later rated the memory (Reisberg et al., 1988). Vividness and confidence are not measures of accuracy. People who recorded how they learned of the Challenger explosion the day after it occurred later gave confident accounts that often differed substantially from what they had written (Neisser & Harsch, 1992), and after a cargo plane crashed into an Amsterdam apartment building, many survey respondents reported having seen television film of the moment of the crash, which did not exist (Crombag et al., 1996). These studies concern hearing news about public events, not a personally experienced crime (see the paper on flashbulb memories), but they show that an emotional memory can be vivid and sincerely held and still be wrong in particulars.
What Counts as Central: Attentional Narrowing and Its Qualifications
The usual explanation for the central-versus-peripheral pattern is attentional narrowing: as arousal increases, the range of cues a person uses contracts (Easterbrook, 1959), so attention concentrates on what is most salient or threatening while surrounding details receive less. The most studied forensic example is weapon focus. Witnesses to an event with a visible weapon looked at the weapon more often and longer, and identified the person holding it less accurately, than witnesses to a comparable event without one (Loftus et al., 1987), and meta-analyses have found the effect reliable though variable (Fawcett et al., 2013; Steblay, 1992); the paper on memory for violence and weapon focus reviews that research.
Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 105–115) add three qualifications. First, the research has often conflated stress with negative emotion, and studies define “central” inconsistently, sometimes as spatially central and sometimes as central to the plot, with differing results; Easterbrook’s original work also drew on studies of food-deprived animals (pp. 105–107). Second, most laboratory studies induce emotion with a striking visual stimulus, such as a wound, which may act as an attention magnet; when emotion arose from the story instead, arousal improved memory for all aspects of the event, with no narrowing (Laney et al., 2004; Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 113–114). Third, participants who viewed an emotional staged mugging described the perpetrator more fully than those who viewed a neutral version, but described his actions less well and identified him less accurately (Houston et al., 2013), a pattern the simple model does not predict (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 114–115).
Discrete emotions may also matter: fear, anger, and sadness may direct attention toward different things, so what is central may depend on which emotion a person felt (Levine & Pizarro, 2004). Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 124–125) conclude that negative emotion generally undermines encoding but can improve memory for some central details, and that whether this holds for events emotional because of their meaning, and for particular emotions, is unresolved. The pattern is real but conditional, and testimony that states it as a fixed rule goes beyond the research.
Acute Stress and Eyewitness Accuracy
A meta-analysis of 27 tests of identification and 36 tests of recall found that high stress impaired both, with larger effects in staged-crime studies than in some other designs (Deffenbacher et al., 2004). The authors proposed that the difference between studies finding enhancement and studies finding impairment may reflect the difference between a heightened state of attention and a defensive response to threat.
In the best-known field study, 509 active-duty military personnel in survival-school training identified an interrogator less accurately after a high-stress interrogation involving physical confrontation than after a low-stress one, across several identification formats and despite prolonged face-to-face contact (Morgan et al., 2004). Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 101–103) note two limits that point in opposite directions. Trained military personnel might cope with stress better than civilians, but the trainees had also been deprived of food and sleep for about 48 hours, and Reisberg and Heuer (2007) argued that the results may apply only to witnesses under similar physical duress. Visitors to a horror attraction who reported higher anxiety described and identified an actor who confronted them less accurately than visitors who reported lower anxiety (Valentine & Mesout, 2009).
Not every study points the same way. Witnesses to a real shooting, interviewed months later, gave detailed and largely accurate accounts (Yuille & Cutshall, 1986), although that was a single case. The interpretation is itself debated. A 2022 review listed the belief that high stress improves eyewitness accuracy among beliefs it described as contrary to the evidence (Pezdek & Reisberg, 2022). Other researchers replied that many eyewitness studies test memory within minutes of the stressor and so cannot separate encoding effects from retrieval impairment, that most studies in the 2004 meta-analysis relied on self-reported stress, and that the conditions under which stress enhances memory are common in real events; in a survey of 73 memory experts that they cited, 78% of those classed as fundamental memory experts but 32% of those classed as eyewitness experts agreed that stress at encoding enhances memory (Marr et al., 2023; group sizes are not given in that commentary). Researchers disagree, and the effects depend on timing and measurement. Neither side suggests that stressful accounts should be accepted or dismissed automatically.
Timing: Stress at Encoding, Consolidation, and Retrieval
Timing helps reconcile these findings. A meta-analysis of 113 human studies with 6,216 participants found that stress before or during encoding generally impaired memory, unless it came very shortly before encoding and the material was directly related to the stressor, in which case it improved memory; stress after encoding generally improved memory; and stress just before or during retrieval impaired memory, more so for emotional material (Shields et al., 2017). The size of the cortisol response did not predict these effects, and the laboratory stressors were far milder than assault or combat, a limit that applies to both sides. Participant sex did not generally moderate these effects, although studies with more men produced larger cortisol responses, and the enhancement after encoding and the impairment at retrieval appeared mainly in studies that excluded women taking hormonal contraceptives (Shields et al., 2017).
Two practical points follow. A stressor that is itself the event to be remembered may enhance memory for what is related to it, consistent with good memory for the core of a frightening experience. Strong distress during an interview or testimony may impair retrieval, consistent with a witness who recalls more once calm; any delay, however, also leaves room for forgetting and for exposure to outside accounts.
Memory for Trauma
The research supports a measured conclusion: real traumatic events are often, but not always, well remembered in their core, but those memories are not immune to distortion. The core of a significant event is often well retained; that does not tell us whether this account is accurate, because details, context, and source are what change, and suggestion can alter any memory. Passengers on a 2001 transatlantic flight that ran out of fuel and made an emergency landing, whose shared experience allowed their recollections to be checked, showed enhanced episodic detail for the event years later, with no difference in richness or accuracy between those with and without posttraumatic stress disorder (McKinnon et al., 2015). In a study of 44 women recruited from a sexual trauma agency, memories of sexual assault or abuse were rated as vivid and detailed and were not more impaired or fragmented than memories of other events (Peace et al., 2008). Among people whose childhood sexual abuse was documented years earlier, those who named the abuse as their most traumatic life event remembered it relatively accurately, and more severe PTSD symptoms were associated with greater accuracy (Alexander et al., 2005).
Traumatic memories are subject to the same reconstructive processes as other memories. Among more than 800 active-duty Navy and Marine Corps trainees at a U.S. Navy survival school, misinformation introduced after a stressful interrogation altered memory for event details and for the interrogator’s identity (Morgan et al., 2013). Misleading information after a distressing film produced errors that increased with delay (Paz-Alonso & Goodman, 2008), and soldiers’ reports of deployment stressors changed substantially across repeated assessments (Engelhard et al., 2008). Reviewers have cautioned that emotional significance does not guarantee accuracy (Laney & Loftus, 2005; Morgan & Southwick, 2014). The paper on false memory in trauma and PTSD reviews this research.
Whether trauma can be repressed and later recovered is a separate and contested question. Some researchers argue that the evidence for repression is weak and that belief in it can encourage suggestive practices (Otgaar et al., 2019); others argue that critics have mischaracterized the concept and the evidence (Brewin, 2021; Brewin et al., 2019). Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 70–71) describe general agreement that recovered memories are sometimes accurate and sometimes the product of suggestion. The paper on recovered and repressed memory addresses that debate.
The Fragmentation Debate
Whether traumatic memories are stored in fragments is disputed, and researchers on both sides have published evidence. One position holds that posttraumatic stress disorder involves strong involuntary, image-based memory of the trauma alongside weaker voluntary, narrative memory of it (Brewin, 2014). The opposing position notes that, across 16 studies, the link between dissociation and fragmentation appeared in people’s own ratings of their memories but not in coding by trained raters or computers (Bedard-Gilligan & Zoellner, 2012), and that trauma-exposed adults with and without PTSD did not differ consistently across 28 coherence measures (Rubin, Deffler, et al., 2016). Brewin (2016) argued that those measures were not suited to the question, and the study’s authors replied that the data did not support his position (Rubin, Berntsen, et al., 2016).
The exchange continued with newer work. An experiment using distressing films found memories of traumatic and nontraumatic films statistically equivalent in coherence (Taylor et al., 2022). In response, Brewin and Field (2024) argued that a film study with healthy participants cannot test predictions about PTSD and reported a meta-analysis showing a strong association between PTSD and incoherent or disorganized trauma memories, with the strength depending on how disorganization was measured. A published discussion sets out both positions (McNally et al., 2022). The research has not settled how far the association holds on objective measures, and the debate concerns how memories are organized, not whether they are accurate. It supports neither testimony that a particular person’s inconsistencies were caused by trauma nor the reverse claim that a coherent account indicates rehearsal or fabrication.
Limits of the Evidence
Most research on emotion and stress uses films, slides, or staged events with university students, mild stressors, low stakes, and short delays. Field studies are few and rarely have an independent record of what happened; the survival-school studies involved trained personnel under deprivation, the trauma studies involved particular disasters and selected samples, and stress was often self-reported. Effect sizes are averages with wide variation: some stressed witnesses identify accurately, and some calm witnesses do not. Neurobiological findings come largely from animal research and group imaging studies. Women are more likely than men to meet criteria for PTSD, although less likely to experience potentially traumatic events overall (Tolin & Foa, 2006), but the trauma-memory studies reviewed here did not report sex comparisons, and the sexual-trauma study sampled only women (Peace et al., 2008). No study can establish how much stress a particular witness experienced, what that witness attended to, or whether a particular memory is accurate, and vividness, confidence, distress, and coherence do not answer that question either.
Questions to Ask About This Research
When Deffenbacher et al. (2004) is cited, counsel should ask what exactly was counted: average effects across 63 tests, many with self-reported stress, which cannot show that a particular identification was wrong. When Morgan et al. (2004) is cited, ask whether it applies to this person, given trained personnel under food and sleep deprivation (Reisberg & Heuer, 2007). When McGaugh (2004) is offered, ask how much is animal research and whether it addresses accuracy or only memory strength. When the central-versus-peripheral pattern is used to credit or discount a detail, ask how “central” was defined (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 106–107). When McKinnon et al. (2015) or Peace et al. (2008) is offered to show that trauma memories are reliable, ask how much evidence it rests on and whether accuracy was checked. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Under the due process framework for identifications, a court asks first whether law enforcement used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure and, if so, whether the identification is nonetheless reliable under the totality of the circumstances (Neil v. Biggers, 1972; Manson v. Brathwaite, 1977). Stress research bears most on two Biggers factors, opportunity to view and degree of attention: high stress can lower identification accuracy, and attention under threat may go to a weapon or the threat rather than a face, but the research cannot show that a particular witness’s attention was impaired. Where suggestive circumstances were not arranged by police, the Supreme Court has relied on cross-examination, expert testimony, and jury instructions (Perry v. New Hampshire, 2012). Some state courts, such as the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Henderson (2011), have listed high stress among the factors bearing on identification reliability and called for enhanced jury instructions.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, the proponent must show that it is more likely than not that expert testimony rests on sufficient facts, reliable methods, and a reliable application to the case; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) established the trial judge’s gatekeeping role, and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended that obligation to all expert testimony, including technical or other specialized knowledge. In courts-martial, Military Rule of Evidence 321 makes an identification process unlawful if it is so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification; when unreliability is raised, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance that the identification was reliable under the circumstances. Through Military Rule of Evidence 1102, the 2023 federal amendment became part of Military Rule of Evidence 702 in 2025 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025); practitioners should confirm the current text. Admissibility is assessed under the six Houser factors (United States v. Houser, 1993). Testimony about trauma and memory may not vouch for a complainant’s credibility, directly or indirectly (United States v. Brooks, 2007, a child case).
Arizona
Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 adopted the Daubert standard effective January 1, 2012, and was amended effective January 1, 2024, to track the 2023 federal amendment (Ariz. Sup. Ct. Order R-23-0004). Pretrial identifications may be challenged at a Dessureault hearing (State v. Dessureault, 1969). In State v. Chapple (1983), the Arizona Supreme Court held that excluding expert testimony on factors affecting eyewitness reliability was an abuse of discretion where identification was the central disputed issue, while leaving such testimony generally to the trial court’s discretion. State v. Salazar-Mercado (2014) permits general educational testimony that satisfies Rules 702 and 403, while State v. Lindsey (1986) and State v. Moran (1986), both child cases, bar expert opinion on the truthfulness of a witness or class of witnesses. State v. Haskie (2017), an adult domestic violence case, directs trial courts to confine experts to their expertise and avoid categorical statements about what is typical without empirical support, a caution that applies to claims about trauma and memory. The limits on counterintuitive-behavior testimony are discussed in the Counterintuitive Testimony resource.
Special Issues in Legal Practice
The principles described above apply with equal force to every party in a legal proceeding. The science operates the same way regardless of who is asking the questions, and the research summarized here does not by itself favor either side. What differs between the parties is not the science but the vantage point — the particular places where these issues tend to surface, and the particular errors each party is best positioned to guard against. The two summaries below identify those recurring issues. They are offered for orientation, not as litigation strategy; in every case the controlling question is what the evidence in that case will, and will not, support, and the expert’s role is to inform the trier of fact rather than to advocate for either side.
Special Issues for Prosecutors
The research supports several propositions prosecutors can legitimately present. Emotional arousal generally strengthens memory for the core of an event (Christianson, 1992; McGaugh, 2004), and studies of real traumatic events, including sexual trauma, have found core memories detailed and durable (McKinnon et al., 2015; Peace et al., 2008), so peripheral gaps are not by themselves signs that an event did not occur. Stress at retrieval can impair recall (Shields et al., 2017), and claims that trauma makes memory unreliable as such, or that a coherent account indicates rehearsal, are not supported. Prosecutors are well positioned to record early accounts, document what information witnesses received, and anchor a case in the core of an account and in corroboration.
The research also counsels caution. Vividness, confidence, and distress do not establish accuracy (Neisser & Harsch, 1992; Laney & Loftus, 2005), trauma memories can be altered by misinformation (Morgan et al., 2013), and high stress lowers identification accuracy on average (Deffenbacher et al., 2004), so a stranger identification made under threat warrants scrutiny. Testimony that central details of traumatic memories are reliably accurate goes beyond the evidence (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 105–115), whether trauma memories are fragmented remains disputed (Brewin & Field, 2024; Taylor et al., 2022), and attributing a mechanism to a particular complainant risks vouching.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. High stress at encoding lowers identification and recall accuracy on average (Deffenbacher et al., 2004; Morgan et al., 2004; Valentine & Mesout, 2009), attention under threat may go to a weapon rather than a face (Loftus et al., 1987), and emotional memories can be vivid yet wrong in particulars (Neisser & Harsch, 1992). Traumatic memories remain open to post-event information (Morgan et al., 2013; Paz-Alonso & Goodman, 2008), and the claim that trauma memories are fragmented is contested, particularly on objective measures (Bedard-Gilligan & Zoellner, 2012; Rubin, Deffler, et al., 2016). Expert testimony on these points can help a factfinder weigh the Biggers factors and evaluate an account in light of its conditions.
The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. Emotion generally strengthens memory for the core of an event, and stress can enhance memory for material related to the stressor (Shields et al., 2017; Marr et al., 2023), so stress does not by itself make an account unreliable. The survival-school findings may not generalize to witnesses without comparable physical deprivation (Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 102–103), and the fragmentation debate is not resolved in either direction, since a meta-analysis found a strong association between PTSD and disorganized trauma memories (Brewin & Field, 2024). An expert cannot tell the factfinder that a particular memory is false, and the same principles apply to an accused person’s recollection of a frightening or violent event.
This paper is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The author is a psychologist, not an attorney; summaries of law are general and must be verified against current authority or with a licensed attorney.
References
Alexander, K. W., Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Edelstein, R. S., Redlich, A. D., Cordon, I. M., & Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Traumatic impact predicts long-term memory for documented child sexual abuse. Psychological Science, 16(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00777.x
Bedard-Gilligan, M., & Zoellner, L. A. (2012). Dissociation and memory fragmentation in post-traumatic stress disorder: An evaluation of the dissociative encoding hypothesis. Memory, 20(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.655747
Brewin, C. R. (2014). Episodic memory, perceptual memory, and their interaction: Foundations for a theory of posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033722
Brewin, C. R. (2016). Coherence, disorganization, and fragmentation in traumatic memory reconsidered: A response to Rubin et al. (2016). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 1011–1017. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000154
Brewin, C. R. (2021). Tilting at windmills: Why attacks on repression are misguided. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(2), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927674
Brewin, C. R., & Field, A. P. (2024). Meta-analysis shows trauma memories in posttraumatic stress disorder lack coherence: A response to Taylor et al. (2022). Clinical Psychological Science, 12(5), 1027–1033. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026241240456
Brewin, C. R., Li, H., Ntarantana, V., Unsworth, C., & McNeilis, J. (2019). Is the public understanding of memory prone to widespread “myths”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12), 2245–2257. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000610
Cahill, L., Prins, B., Weber, M., & McGaugh, J. L. (1994). β-Adrenergic activation and memory for emotional events. Nature, 371(6499), 702–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/371702a0
Christianson, S.-Å. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.284
Crombag, H. F. M., Wagenaar, W. A., & van Koppen, P. J. (1996). Crashing memories and the problem of “source monitoring.” Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199604)10:2<95::AID-ACP366>3.0.CO;2-#
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707
Engelhard, I. M., van den Hout, M. A., & McNally, R. J. (2008). Memory consistency for traumatic events in Dutch soldiers deployed to Iraq. Memory, 16(1), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701334022
Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the “weapon focus” literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325
Houston, K. A., Clifford, B. R., Phillips, L. H., & Memon, A. (2013). The emotional eyewitness: The effects of emotion on specific aspects of eyewitness recall and recognition performance. Emotion, 13(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029220
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. (2025). Amendments to the Military Rules of Evidence since 1984 (G. E. Maggs, Ed.; 2025 ed.). https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/MRE%20Amendments%202025.pdf
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Laney, C., Campbell, H. V., Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (2004). Memory for thematically arousing events. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196888
Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2005). Traumatic memories are not necessarily accurate memories. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(13), 823–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370505001303
Levine, L. J., & Pizarro, D. A. (2004). Emotion and memory research: A grumpy overview. Social Cognition, 22(5), 530–554. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.5.530.50767
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044839
Marr, C., Otgaar, H., Quaedflieg, C. W. E. M., Sauerland, M., & Hope, L. (2023). Correcting myths about stress and memory: A commentary on Pezdek and Reisberg, 2022. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1078021. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1078021
McGaugh, J. L. (2004). The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144157
McKinnon, M. C., Palombo, D. J., Nazarov, A., Kumar, N., Khuu, W., & Levine, B. (2015). Threat of death and autobiographical memory: A study of passengers from Flight AT236. Clinical Psychological Science, 3(4), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702614542280
McNally, R. J., Berntsen, D., Brewin, C. R., & Rubin, D. C. (2022). Are memories of sexual trauma fragmented? A post publication discussion among Richard J. McNally, Dorthe Berntsen, Chris R. Brewin and David C. Rubin. Memory, 30(5), 658–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2022.2061135
Morgan, C. A., III, Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(3), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.03.004
Morgan, C. A., III, & Southwick, S. (2014). Perspective: I believe what I remember, but it may not be true. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 112, 101–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2013.12.011
Morgan, C. A., III, Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.11.002
Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about Challenger. In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and accuracy in recall: Studies of “flashbulb” memories (pp. 9–31). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664069.003
Otgaar, H., Howe, M. L., Patihis, L., Merckelbach, H., Lynn, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2019). The return of the repressed: The persistent and problematic claims of long-forgotten trauma. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(6), 1072–1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619862306
Paz-Alonso, P. M., & Goodman, G. S. (2008). Trauma and memory: Effects of post-event misinformation, retrieval order, and retention interval. Memory, 16(1), 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701363146
Peace, K. A., Porter, S., & ten Brinke, L. (2008). Are memories for sexually traumatic events “special”? A within-subjects investigation of trauma and memory in a clinical sample. Memory, 16(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701363583
Pezdek, K., & Reisberg, D. (2022). Psychological myths about evidence in the legal system: How should researchers respond? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 11(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000037
Reisberg, D., & Heuer, F. (2007). The influence of emotion on memory in forensic settings. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. 1. Memory for events (pp. 81–116). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reisberg, D., Heuer, F., McLean, J., & O’Shaughnessy, M. (1988). The quantity, not the quality, of affect predicts memory vividness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 26(2), 100–103. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334873
Rubin, D. C., Berntsen, D., Ogle, C. M., Deffler, S. A., & Beckham, J. C. (2016). Scientific evidence versus outdated beliefs: A response to Brewin (2016). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(7), 1018–1021. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000211
Rubin, D. C., Deffler, S. A., Ogle, C. M., Dowell, N. M., Graesser, A. C., & Beckham, J. C. (2016). Participant, rater, and computer measures of coherence in posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(1), 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000126
Shields, G. S., Sazma, M. A., McCullough, A. M., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2017). The effects of acute stress on episodic memory: A meta-analysis and integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 636–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000100
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02352267
Taylor, A., Zajac, R., Takarangi, M. K. T., & Garry, M. (2022). Evidence from the trauma-film paradigm that traumatic and nontraumatic memories are statistically equivalent on coherence. Clinical Psychological Science, 10(3), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026211053312
Tolin, D. F., & Foa, E. B. (2006). Sex differences in trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder: A quantitative review of 25 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 959–992. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.959
Valentine, T., & Mesout, J. (2009). Eyewitness identification under stress in the London Dungeon. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(2), 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1463
Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.291
Legal Authorities
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012).
State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969).
State v. Haskie, 242 Ariz. 582, 399 P.3d 657 (2017).
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 27 A.3d 872 (2011).
State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).
State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 728 P.2d 248 (1986).
State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 325 P.3d 996 (2014).
United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 2007).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 321.
Mil. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Related topic papers: Flashbulb Memories · Memory for Violence and Weapon Focus · False Memory in Trauma and PTSD · Recovered and Repressed Memory · Confidence and Accuracy · Dissociation and Memory
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Counterintuitive Testimony · Courts-Martial