Abstract
AbstractThe proposed experiment will examine the effect of deceptive behavior on memory. Participants will be assigned to a “strong‐incentive to cheat” or “weak‐incentive to cheat” condition and play the adapted Sequential Dyadic Die‐Rolling paradigm. Specifically, Player A (computer; participants think it is another participant) throws a die and reports it to Player B (participant). Then Player B throws his/her die, remembers the outcome, and reports it to Player A. Participants in the “strong‐incentive to cheat” condition are monetarily punished if their die roll outcome differs from Player A's die roll outcome. Participants in the “weak‐incentive to cheat” condition are not punished if the die roll outcomes differ. Two‐days later, memory for the die‐rolling event will be assessed. We predict that participants in the “strong‐incentive to cheat” condition will have lower belief and recollection for the die‐rolling event and will report more errors than participants in the “weak‐incentive to cheat” condition.
Highlights
Avoiding punishment is one of the reasons why people lie in investigations and, in the courtroom
What happens to memory for events that have been lied about when the purpose of the lie is to avoid punishment? Take for instance the case of Alfred Dewayne Brown (Innocent Project, 2020)
A crucial question underpinning cases such as the one described here is whether memories about an experienced event become adversely affected after having lied about the event? does engaging in deceptive behaviors to avoid punishment lead to memory impairing effects? This is the focus of the current experiment
Summary
Avoiding punishment is one of the reasons why people lie in investigations and, in the courtroom. What happens to memory for events that have been lied about when the purpose of the lie is to avoid punishment? Take for instance the case of Alfred Dewayne Brown (Innocent Project, 2020). Two accomplices, named Dashan Glaspie and Elijah Joubert, claimed that Brown was the shooter (Possley, 2015). In exchange for his testimony, Glaspie avoided the death penalty and received a 30-year prison sentence. Even though shortly after the conviction Joubert and Dockery recanted their statements and admitted that these were false testimonies, new evidence was necessary to exonerate Brown. The recanted statements were deemed unreliable (Possley, 2015; Innocence project, 2020). A crucial question underpinning cases such as the one described here is whether memories about an experienced event become adversely affected after having lied about the event? does engaging in deceptive behaviors to avoid punishment lead to memory impairing effects? This is the focus of the current experiment
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
