Examining the effects of negative emotion and interviewing procedure on eyewitness recall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Witnessing or experiencing a crime can be emotionally distressing and this emotional reaction can affect the formation and retrieval of event‐related memory. Extant eyewitness research, however, has generated inconsistent conclusions regarding the effects of emotional arousal on eyewitness memory. In the present experiment, we used a mock witness paradigm to attempt to remedy several methodological limitations that have persisted in the literature and shed light on the effects of emotional memory within an investigative interviewing context. Participants ( N = 132) viewed either a Negative or Neutral video and either immediately or one week later provided their account of the video in a virtual interview procedure, consisting of either cognitive interview‐ based instructions or a free recall. Negative emotion was associated with selectively enhanced recall for the central aspects of the video. Participants who viewed the Negative video reported more details that were central to the target video than did those who viewed the Neutral video. The present findings highlight the potential for negative emotional events to lead to focally enhanced recall performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".