Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 63 (2013) 251–256

Disponible en ligne sur

www.sciencedirect.com

Original article

Beliefs about memory among psychology students and their

professors in psychodynamic clinical and experimental study
programs
Les croyances des étudiants en psychologie et de leurs enseignants à propos de la
mémoire
C. Mirandola a,∗ , E. Ferruzza a , C. Cornoldi a , S. Magnussen b
a
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy
b
Center for the Study of Human Cognition, Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction. – Research has shown that lay people, and even psychologists, may have distorted knowl-
Received 27 June 2012 edge about memory functioning. May different study programs in psychology influence their ideas?
Received in revised form 22 May 2013 Objective(s). – The study was aimed at evaluating psychology students’ and psychology professors’ knowl-
Accepted 20 July 2013
edge about memory and factors potentially affecting the accuracy of episodic memory reports in clinical
and legal contexts.
Keywords: Method. – A questionnaire was administered to introductory and advanced students of psychology
Memory
enrolled at different curricula – experimental psychology and clinical psychology with a psychoanalytical
Eyewitness testimony
Beliefs
orientation – and to professors teaching the courses in the same curricula.
Psychology students Results. – Results showed that advanced students and professors in experimental psychology have higher
Psychology professors general knowledge of factors influencing memory performance than their peers, including memory issues
of particular relevance to clinical psychology; no difference between the curricula was found for the
introductory students.
Conclusion. – The results are discussed in terms of the risks that the lack of knowledge on memory
functioning of the psychologists with a psychodynamic orientation may have in producing wrong reports
in forensic contexts.
© 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

r é s u m é

Mots clés : Introduction. – Le fait de suivre un cursus particulier de psychologie peut-il affecter les croyances à propos
Mémoire du fonctionnement de la mémoire ?
Témoignage Objectifs et méthode. – De manière à évaluer les connaissances que possèdent les étudiants en psycholo-
Croyances gie et leurs professeurs à propos de la mémoire et des facteurs susceptibles d’affecter l’exactitude des
Étudiants de psychologie
informations rappelées dans des contextes cliniques et judiciaires, un questionnaire a été proposé à des
Professeurs de psychologie
étudiants débutant leur cursus et à des étudiants avancés suivant soit un cursus de psychologie expéri-
mentale, soit un cursus de psychologie clinique avec une orientation psychanalytique. Les professeurs
intervenant dans ces différents cursus ont également rempli le questionnaire.
Résultats. – Les résultats indiquent que les étudiants avancés inscrits dans un cursus de psychologie
expérimentale et leurs enseignants ont une connaissance plus élevée des facteurs qui affectent les per-
formances mnésiques des témoins, en comparaison des étudiants avancés inscrits en psychologie clinique
psychanalytique et des professeurs de ces derniers. Cette différence porte également sur des aspects de
la mémoire qui concernent directement la psychologie clinique. Pour les étudiants débutant leur cursus,
on n’observe pas de différence en fonction de l’orientation choisie.

∗ Corresponding author. Department of General Psychology, University of Padua, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padova, Italy.
E-mail address: chiara.mirandola@unipd.it (C. Mirandola).

1162-9088/$ – see front matter © 2013 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2013.07.004
252 C. Mirandola et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 63 (2013) 251–256
Discussion. – Les résultats sont discutés en termes de risques encourus dans le contexte judiciaire lorsque
les psychologues qui interviennent ne possèdent pas de connaissances suffisantes à propos du fonction-
nement de la mémoire.
1. Introduction
Issues of human memory are of great interest both to the gen-
eral public (Herculano-Houzel, 2003) and to academic professions,
which deal with questions of memory as part of their professional
work. Professionals in such diverse disciplines as history, social
anthropology, law, and psychology are frequently confronted with
issues of episodic memory when deciding whether the tales of
their informants, witnesses or clients, are reliable or influenced by
memory-distorting biases. Such decisions would seem to require
at least some knowledge of autobiographical and episodic mem-
ory, and of factors challenging memory truth. However, except for
psychologists, an introduction to the study of memory is not a part
of the professional training.
A number of recent surveys carried out in Canada, China, Esto-
nia, Norway, Sweden and USA have probed the general public
about general issues of memory (Magnussen et al., 2006; Simons
& Chabris, 2011), and probed both lay samples (Benton, Ross,
Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006; Desmarais & Read, 2011;
Magnussen, Melinder, Raja, & Stridbeck, 2010; Wise & Safer, 2010)
and legal professionals (Benton et al., 2006; Granhag, Strömwall,
& Hartwig, 2005; Kask, 2011; Magnussen et al., 2008; Wise, Gong,
Safer, & Lee, 2010; Wise & Safer, 2004; Wise, Pawlenko, Safer, &
Mayer, 2009; Wise, Safer, & Maro, 2011) about specific issues of
eyewitness testimony. The results of these surveys show that, in
general, the knowledge of attorneys, judges and police officers of
episodic memory and of memory distorting factors is quite limited
and is similar to that of the general public. On a number of memory
issues large minorities in all samples harbored positively incorrect
beliefs. Thus, naïve theories about memory do not seem to agree
with memory science.
Psychologists are faced with questions of episodic and auto-
biographical memory in a wide range of professional contexts, in
clinical and counseling work, and as expert witnesses in court,
sometimes in the double role of therapist and expert witness. The
results of a recent survey of a large sample of Norwegian licensed
practitioners, designed to probe memory issues relevant in both
clinical and legal contexts (Magnussen & Melinder, 2012), showed
that psychologists as a group were marginally more knowledgeable
than legal professionals and the lay public on questions common
to the surveys, despite their training in the science of memory.
On important and sensitive questions that may turn up in ther-
apy and in court, large minorities of the psychologist sample either
did not know or gave an incorrect answer, according to current
memory science. For example, a sizable minority of the psychol-
ogist sample believed that most of the recovered memories in
psychotherapy – i.e., memories of events of which the patient had
no previous recollection – were real rather than false memories,
whereas the available evidence suggests they are not (Loftus &
Davis, 2006; Piper, Lillevik, & Kritzer, 2008). Likewise, a similar siz-
able minority believed that violent offenders’ claims of amnesia for
the violent act represent real memory losses rather than malin-
gering as believed by most scientists (Christianson, 2007). Both of
these issues are related to ideas of “repression” or “dissociation”
of traumatic memories, associated with theories inspired by Freud
and Janet, which have little support from current memory research
(Davis & Loftus, 2009; Piper et al., 2008).
Discrepancy between psychological folklore and the science of
memory on the one hand, and between psychological scientific
© 2013 Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
sub-cultures, on the other hand, may have implications in pro-
fessional contexts. For example, in some well-known Italian trials,
notably the recent case of Rignano Flaminio’s kindergarten where
kindergarten teachers were accused of massive abuse of children
in their custody, psychologists with a psychoanalytic orientation
acted as experts and inevitably conveyed points of view that could
be different from those of memory researchers. What is the impact
of study programs in psychology on the knowledge and beliefs
about autobiographical and episodic memory? Does the response
profile of the psychologist sample surveyed by Magnussen and
Melinder (2012) reflect the clinical training of the majority of prac-
titioners or does it reflect a gradual evaporation of scientifically
based knowledge in psychological practice? In an analysis of the
current status of clinical psychology, Baker, Mcfall, and Shoham
(2009) concluded that the practice of US clinical psychologists was
more governed by personal experience and clinical traditions than
by scientific research. The results of Magnussen and Melinder’s
study (2012) give some support to both positions, showing mild
effects of both age and occupation, with psychologists in pri-
vate clinical practice scoring lower that psychologists combining
practice with an academic affiliation. The present study investi-
gates the possible effect of different University study programs.
In Italy, most universities maintain separate curricula for exper-
imental psychology and clinical psychology, where psychoanalysis,
or more generally psychodynamic psychology, dominates or is even
the only offered type of clinical training. Indeed, the preponderant
presence of the psychodynamic training programs and of clinician
psychologists who have followed this type of training is a peculiar
characteristic of Italy, but also of many other countries, especially
in Southern Europe and Southern America (Ben Plotkin, 2012).
Given the distinction between psychodynamic and experimental
curricula, it is possible to evaluate whether psychology students fol-
lowing the different curricula have different beliefs and knowledge
about memory and eyewitness testimony, and to evaluate whether
their professors in the respective curricula differ in their knowledge
and beliefs, and whether their beliefs are in harmony with current
memory science.
2. The questionnaire
At the University of Padova, one of the largest psychology
campuses in Italy, students register to either clinical or exper-
imental psychology programs when enrolling at the University.
We surveyed introductory and advanced students in experimental
and clinical (psychodynamic) study programs and their profes-
sors, using a translated version of the Magnussen and Melinder’s
questionnaire (2012). We decided to employ this particular ques-
tionnaire as it resulted useful for examining different beliefs in
different professional groups, including psychologists, and also
because – due to its clarity – it could be administered to naïf peo-
ple such as students enrolled in introductory courses. The brevity
of this questionnaire implies the limitation that only some clini-
cal contexts are taken into consideration, but also the advantage
that the considered clinical contexts are the ones that can be easily
understood by novices.
We surveyed six samples of academic participants:
• introductory students (n = 100) of the psychology course, enrolled
one month prior to the administration of the questionnaire, half
 C. Mirandola et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 63 (2013) 251–256 253

Table 1
Eyewitnesses topics and statements – the response alternative believed to be most correct according to current memory science is indicated by an asterisk.
Thèmes et énoncés à propos des témoins oculaires (l’astérisque indique la réponse considérée comme la plus correcte sur la base de la recherche sur la mémoire).

Topics Statements

1. Confidence–accuracy At trial, an eyewitness’s confidence is a good predictor of his or her accuracy in identifying the defendant as the
perpetrator of the crime
Response alternatives: agree – disagree* – uncertain

2. Effects of post-event information Eyewitness testimony about an event often reflects not only what a witness actually saw but information obtained
later on from other witnesses, the police, the media, etc.
Response alternatives: agree* – disagree – uncertain

3. Minor details A witness’s ability to recall minor details about a crime is a good indicator of the accuracy of the witness’s
identification of the perpetrator of the crime
Response alternatives: agree – disagree* – uncertain

4. Impact of stress Very high stress at the time of observation has a negative effect on the accuracy of testimony
Response alternatives: agree* – disagree – uncertain

5. Attitudes and expectations An eyewitness’s perception and memory for an event may be affected by his or her attitudes and expectations
Response alternatives: agree* – disagree – uncertain

6. Weapon focus The presence of a weapon can impair an eyewitness’s ability to accurately identify the perpetrator’s face
Response alternatives: generally true* – generally false – uncertain

7. Forgetting curve The rate of memory loss for an event is greatest right after the event and then levels off over time
Response alternatives: generally true* – generally false – uncertain

8. Children’s recall When small children tell about events they have experienced, do you think they remember better, as well as, or worse
than adults?
Response alternatives: better – as good as – worse* – uncertain

9. Infantile amnesia Many people talk about memory from early childhood year. How far back in time do you believe people can
remember?
Response alternatives: from birth on – 1 year – 2 years – 3 years* – 4 years – 5 years – 6 years or older

10. Recovered memories Sometimes adults in psychotherapy remember traumatic events from early childhood, about which they previously
had absolutely no recollection. Do you think such memories are real or false?
Response alternatives: all are real – most are real – most are false* – all are false – uncertain

11. Dramatic events Sometimes people become witnesses to dramatic events. Do you think the memory for such events are worse, as good
as or better compared to the memory for everyday events?
Response alternatives: better* – as good as – worse – uncertain

12. Repression of adult traumatic memories Sometimes people who have committed murder claim to have no memory for the crime. Do you think such memories
can be repressed and that the perpetrator believes they are telling the truth, or do you think they are lying?
Response alternatives: they tell the truth – they are lying* – uncertain

of these students were enrolled at the experimental curriculum
in psychology and the other half at the psychodynamic clinical
curriculum;
• advanced students (n = 100), who had completed their first-
level degree in psychology, had studied psychology for at least
four years and were attending the specialization courses either
in the experimental curriculum (n = 50) or a psychodynamic
clinical curriculum with a psychoanalytical orientation (n = 50)
and;
• professors of the experimental curriculum (n = 25) and professors
of the clinical curriculum (n = 28).
Within each group students were randomly selected dur-
ing their class attendance. The professor sample was comprised
of full professors, associate professors, contract professors and
researchers with a teaching responsibility. Professors in the area of
memory research were excluded, in order to avoid specific exper-
tise in memory.
The two curricula are characterized by a series of common
courses (such as Introductory Psychology, Social Psychology, Psy-
chometrics, Developmental Psychology, etc.) which last for about
18 months and then differentiate completely for the remaining
credits such that the Experimental course mainly proposes lectures
on the topics of Experimental Psychology, Neuropsychology, Cogni-
tive Sciences, Methodology and the Psychodynamic course mainly
deals with Freudian theory, Dynamic Psychology and Psychoanalyt-
ical therapy. Students follow courses and are also required to fulfil
350 hours of internship, typically carried out in a lab in the case of
the experimental psychology students, and in a clinical setting with
a psychodynamic orientation in the other case.
The questionnaire (Table 1) is the short 12-item questionnaire
used by Magnussen and Melinder (2012), translated and adapted to
Italian with the assistance of author S.M. The questionnaire com-
bines a few items from eyewitness surveys (Wise & Safer, 2004)
with items from more general memory surveys (Magnussen et al.,
2006). Each item includes three to six response alternatives; the
correct response is the alternative supported by current scientific
knowledge (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001; Magnussen et al.,
2006, 2008; Magnussen & Melinder, 2012; Wise & Safer, 2004).
The student respondents received the questionnaire either at
the beginning or at the end of a lecture and completed it within
10 to 12 minutes, with an instruction stating that “this is a survey
we are conducting at the General Psychology Department and we
would like you to read each statement carefully and answer indicat-
ing which one is the best option to you”. The professors received the
questionnaire by e-mail, with the following instructions: “You will
find a brief questionnaire with some sentences referring to general
knowledge on memory and eyewitness testimony in forensic con-
texts. Please, read each statement carefully and tell us your opinion
about its content (marking which one is the best option to you).”
3. Results
We first calculated a total accuracy score based upon the
most accurate responses according to the scientific knowledge
available in psychological literature, following the scoring system
254 C. Mirandola et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 63 (2013) 251–256

1 advanced students and professors: the experimental advanced stu-

0.9 Experimental Clinical dents showed a higher general accuracy than their peers (p < .05).
Memory knowledge score

0.8 Likewise, the professors of the experimental curriculum had higher

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Introductory Advanced students
students
Fig. 1. Mean proportions of the memory score for the six samples of students and
professors.
Scores moyens obtenus par les six groupes d’étudiants et professeurs.
of Magnussen and Melinder (2012) based on the proportion
of correct responses. Fig. 1 shows the results, plotting mem-
ory score (mean proportions) as a function of academic status
for participants in the psychodynamic clinical and experimental
curricula. A 3 (academic status: introductory students vs. advanced
students vs. professors) × 2 (orientation: experimental vs. psycho-
dynamic) between-participants ANOVA on the total accuracy score
revealed a main effect of academic status [F(2,247) = 17.75, p < .001,
!p 2 = .13], qualified by an interaction between academic status
and orientation [F(2,247) = 4.07, p < .05, !p 2 = .03]; post-hoc anal-
yses (Bonferroni correction) showed that an over-all increase in
memory scores as a function of academic status was true only
for the experimental curriculum but not for the psychodynamic
one. Further, no difference was observed between the two sam-
ples of introductory students, but a different pattern reveals for the
knowledge of memory (M = .65, SD = .15) than the psychodynamic
clinical professors (M = .52, SD = .13) (p < .05).
As far as the specific questionnaires items are concerned, Table 2
presents the descriptive statistics for the advanced-student and
professor samples. There is almost complete agreement on some
of the items (items 2, 4, 5). On most items, however, the frequency
of correct answers does not exceed 50%, and on items with a “don’t
know” or “uncertain” category, the proportion of respondents who
ticked off this alternative is very high (items 6–8, 10–12). The
Professors
overall higher memory score of academics in the area of general
experimental psychology is perhaps not surprising; however, a few
items probed memory issues that would appear to be of more rel-
evance to clinical psychology and to clinical work than they are to
experimental psychologists, issues that clinical psychologists also
might face as expert witnesses in court. These are items relating
to children’s recall (8) and infantile amnesia (9), and the items
relating to the question of repressed and recovered memories (10),
and repression of adult traumatic memories (12). An inspection of
Table 2 shows that on many items the experimental samples scored
better than the clinical samples, although it must be noticed that
the percentages of correct responses are sometimes very far from
100% also in the professors and the students of the experimen-
tal program. In the following statistical analyses we collapsed the
advanced student and professor samples within each curriculum.
The results showed a difference in the favour of the experimental
psychology samples regarding the episodic memory of small chil-
dren as compared to that of adults ("2 (3, n = 152) < 10.62, p < .05),
the duration of infantile amnesia ("2 (6, n = 153) < 17.41, p < .01),
the reality of recovered memories ("2 (4, n = 153) < 11.32, p < .05),
and violent offenders’ claimed amnesia for the violent act ("2
(2, n = 152) < 11.34, p < .01). It is notable that the proportions of

Table 2
Response distribution for the advanced-students and professor samples, in percent.
Distribution des réponses (en pourcentages) pour les étudiants avancés et leurs professeurs.

Item Agree Neither Disagree

1. Confidence-accuracy 24, 30/0, 4 20, 30/20, 25 56, 40/80,71a

2. Post-event information 86, 82/100, 96a 8, 14/0, 4 6, 4/0, 0
3. Minor details 34, 28/20, 39 22, 30/24, 32 44, 42/56, 29a
4. Stress impairs accuracy 92, 92/76, 82a 8, 4/12, 7 0, 4/12, 11
5. Attitudes/expectations 90, 88/96, 96a 6, 12/4, 4 4, 0/0, 0

Generally true Generally false Do not know

6. Weapon focus 74, 46/44, 43a 10, 16/28, 4 16, 38/28, 53

7. Forgetting curve 30, 50/60, 50a 24, 18/20, 7 46, 32/20, 43

Better As good as Worse Uncertain

8. Children’s recall 12, 6/12, 11 10, 12/8, 18 42, 28/68, 28a 36, 54/12, 39

Birth to > 1 year > 2 years > 3 years > 4 years > 5 years

9. Infantile amnesia 0, 6/0, 11 2, 16/8, 28 38, 36/56, 39a 24, 16/4, 4 36, 26/32, 18

All real Most real Most false All false Uncertain

a
10. Recovered memories 0, 0/0, 4 44, 66/24, 50 16, 10/40, 11 0, 0/4, 0 40, 24/32, 35

Better As good as Worse Uncertain

a
11. Dramatic events 46, 38/56, 39 8, 2/16, 7 26, 24/20, 21 20, 36/8, 32

Truth Lie Uncertain

a
12. Adult repression 34, 58/36, 25 22, 4/36, 11 44, 38/28, 61

Notations: the percentages of responses are in order reported for the following groups: advanced students experimental, advanced students clinical/professors experimental,
professors clinical.
a
Correct answer according to current memory science.
 C. Mirandola et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 63 (2013) 251–256
“uncertain” responses are high on these items. If the “uncer-
tain” responses are excluded from the statistical analysis the
difference remain significant: children’s recall (p < .05), recovered
memories (p < .05), repression of memories (p < .001), indicat-
ing a higher propensity of the experimental professors and
advanced students in responding correctly to the questionnaire
items.
4. Discussion
The results of the present study suggest that the knowledge
about a number of key issues in human memory is not impres-
sively high among university students and their professors, with
an average score of about 45% to 65% correct answers in the six
samples tested, with advanced students and professors in general
experimental psychology having the highest knowledge scores. It
is perhaps not so surprising that experimental psychologists know
more about memory in general than do psychodynamic clinical
psychologists; what is somewhat surprising is the higher knowl-
edge in these samples about memory issues that are of most
relevance to clinical psychologists. The difference between the psy-
chodynamic clinical and experimental psychology samples is not
due to self-selection by an early interest in memory issues, since
no differences were observed between the introductory students
in the two curricula. This is in line also with a recent study in which
undergraduate students were found to perform similarly to trial
judges and significantly worse than advanced law students (Wise,
Gong, Safer & Lee, 2010).
There is a majority or a sizable minority in all samples, which
expressed the belief that memories that surfaced for the very first
time during therapy are mostly real rather than false (item 10), and
that offenders of violent crimes, such as murder, may have amne-
sia for the killing (item 12). Both of these beliefs are associated
with the idea of repression or dissociation of traumatic memories.
However, there is no sound scientific evidence for this hypothesis
in current memory science; rather the evidence strongly suggests
that both early and adult traumatic experiences are well remem-
bered and resistant to forgetting (McNally, 2003; Davis & Loftus,
2009; Christianson, 2007; Piper et al., 2008; Goodman, Quas, & Ogle,
2010). In fact, it is even doubtful that there is theoretical support
for the idea of repression of memories of real traumatic experi-
ences in classical works. Freud nowhere speaks of repression of
adult traumatic experiences, and in most of his writings repres-
sion is associated with infantile wishes. In “The interpretation of
dreams” (Freud, 1950) he writes: “. . .among these wish impulses
originating in the infantile life, indestructible and incapable of inhi-
bition, there are some the fulfilment of which have come to be in
contradiction with the purposive ideas of our secondary thinking.
The fulfilment of these wishes would no longer produce an affect
of pleasure, but of pain; and it is just this conversion of affect that
constitutes the essence of what we call “repression””(p. 455). Piper
et al. (2008) have searched the writings of Freud and Janet without
detecting support for the idea of repression of real traumatic events,
and they ascribe this idea to a paper by the psychiatrist Judith Her-
mon given to the American Psychiatric Association in 1985. Not
supported, neither by classical theory nor empirical evidence, it
is surprising that the idea survives even in the academic commu-
nity where beliefs are supposed to be based on available research
rather than on personal experience and clinical tradition, which
appear to govern the beliefs and opinions of many practitioners
(Baker, McFall, & Varda, 2009; Ost, Wright, Easton, Hope, & French,
2013). It should be noted, however, that the number of “uncertain”
responses in our academic samples is very high on these items,
and the number of participants with an expressed either correct
or erroneous beliefs are fairly modest. In general, the “uncertain”
255
and “don’t know” categories were ticked off at a higher rate than in
the sample of practitioners surveyed by Magnussen and Melinder
(2012), otherwise the distribution of responses are quite similar in
the two questionnaires. The presence of this type of responses rep-
resents, on the one hand, a limitation as it reduces the number of
unambiguous responses, but, on the other hand, it shows that many
people in the psychological Italian community have an unclear rep-
resentation on how memory works both at the basic level and in a
more applied context.
Magnussen et al. (2006) found that, on certain questions,
respondents with elementary school education actually surpassed
academic respondents, expressing beliefs in harmony with current
memory science. We looked for a similar “dis-learning” effect in the
present results, comparing the results for the introductory students
to those of the advance students and professors. No such effect was
found.
Given the importance of issues of episodic and autobiograph-
ical memory in many professional contexts – in the court room
and the therapy room – practitioners should be well rehearsed in
the psychology of memory. However, the results of the present
study show that the level of knowledge of episodic memory
among introductory and advanced students, and among professors
of psychology at a major Italian university is modest, especially
among participants in the clinical study programs with a psycho-
dynamic orientation. Thus, when professionally confronted with
such questions, many practitioners educated in these programs
will have insufficient knowledge of the results of current mem-
ory science, at a risk of making the wrong judgments. This is
particularly important when psychologists are required to work
as memory experts in court (Howe, 2012). It must be noted that
the present results cannot be extended to teachers and practi-
tioners following a non-psychodynamic training/orientation, e.g.
cognitive-behavioral, but that – as already mentioned – they are
valid for a large percentage of psychologists who could be involved
in perital forensic work, as the majority of clinical psychologists
working in Italy (and also in other countries) still follow a psy-
chodynamic orientation. The present research would therefore
seem to have implications for the teaching of memory aspects at
university courses. In a legal context, courts should be informed
that psychologists with different backgrounds may offer differ-
ent types of opinions and should be oriented towards the choice
of psychologists specifically prepared for the type of required
consultation, paying attention to the fact that the psycholo-
gist’s preparation must be specifically related with eyewitness
memory, as a standard experimental program does not offer a
sufficient preparation. Only a specific training would guarantee a
deeper understanding of the factors involved in eyewitness mem-
ory related issues and, in turn, a more knowledgeable practice
when psychologists are required to work as experts in the court-
room.
Disclosure of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest con-
cerning this article.
References
Baker, T. B., McFall, R. M., & Shobam, V. (2009). Current status and future prospects
of clinical psychology. Toward a scientifically principled approach to men-
tal and behavioral health care. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9,
67–103.
Ben Plotkin, M. (2012). Psychoanalysis in Latin America: Introduction. Psychoanalysis
and History, 14, 227–235.
Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006).
Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges,
and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20,
1115–1129.
256 C. Mirandola et al. / Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 63 (2013) 251–256
Christianson, S. A. (Ed.). (2007). Offenders’ memories of violent crimes. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
Davis, D., & Loftus, E. F. (2009). The scientific status of “repressed” and “recovered”
memories of child sexual abuse. In J. S. Skeem, K. S. Douglas, & S. O. Lilien-
feld (Eds.), Psychological science in the courtroom. Consensus and controversy (pp.
55–79). New York: Guilford Press.
Desmarais, S. L., & Read, J. D. (2011). After 30 years, what do we know about what
jurors know? A mata-analytic review of lat knowledge regarding eyewitness
factors. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 200–210.
Freud, S. (1950). The interpretation of dreams. New York: Random House.
Goodman, G. S., Quas, J. A., & Ogle, C. M. (2010). Child maltreatment and memory.
Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 325–351.
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Granting asylum or not?
Migration Board personnel’s beliefs on deception. Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 31, 29–50.
Herculano-Houzel, S. (2003). What does the public want to know about the brain?
Nature Neuroscience, 6, 325.
Howe, M. L. (2012). Memory lessons from the courtroom: Reflections on being a
memory expert on the witness stand. Memory, 21, 576–583.
Kask, K. (2011). Comparison of knowledge of law enforcement and lay people
regarding eyewitness testimony. Juridica International, 18, 161–172.
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general accep-
tance” of eyewitness research. A study of experts. The American Psychologist, 56,
405–416.
Loftus, E. F., & Davis, D. (2006). Recovered memories. Annual Review of Clinical Psy-
chology, 2, 469–498.
Magnussen, S., Andersson, J., Cornoldi, C., De Beni, R., Endestad, T., Goodman, G. S.,
Helstrup, T., Koriat, A., Larsson, M., Melinder, A., Nilsson, L. G., Ronnberg, J., &
Zimmer, H. (2006). What people believe about memory. Memory, 14, 595–613.
Magnussen, S., & Melinder, A. (2012). What psychologists know and believe about
memory: A survey of practitioners. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 54–60.
Magnussen, S., Melinder, A., Stridbeck, U., & Raja, A. Q. (2010). Beliefs about factors
affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors
and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 122–133.
Magnussen, S., Wise, R. A., Raja, A. Q., Safer, M. A., Pawlenko, N., & Stridbeck, U. (2008).
What judges know about witness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and
US judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 14, 177–188.
McNally, R. J. (2003). Remembering trauma. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Ost, J., Wright, D. B., Easton, S., Hope, L., & French, C. C. (2013). Recovered memories,
satanic abuse, dissociative identity disorder and false memories in the UK: A
survey of clinical psychologists and hypnotherapists. Psychology, Crime and Law,
iFirst, 19, 1–19.
Piper, A., Lillevik, L., & Kritzer, R. (2008). What’s wrong with believing in repression?
A review for legal professionals. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 223–242.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (2011). What people believe about how memory
works: A representative survey of the U.S. population. PLoS ONE, 6(8), e22757.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022757
Wise, R. A., Gong, X.-L., Safer, M. A., Lee, & Y-T. (2010). A comparison of Chinese and U.
S. judges’ knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. Psychology, Crime,
and Law, 16, 695–713.
Wise, R. A., Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., & Meyer, D. (2009). What U.S. prosecutors
and defense attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1266–1281.
Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness
testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427–443.
Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2010). A comparison of what U.S. judges and students know
and believe about eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40,
1400–1422.
Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A., & Maro, C. (2011). What U.S. law enforcement officers know
and believe about eyewitness factors, eyewitness interviews, and identification
procedures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 488–500.