Laypersons’ beliefs and knowledge about human memory: do jurors require expert evidence about memory?

In New Zealand, there was a significant increase in applications from defence counsel over the last two decades to admit expert evidence about memory in child sexual abuse criminal trials. At issue is whether jurors subscribe to misconceptions about memory and, therefore, whether they require such educative expert evidence. This study explored jury eligible participants’ (N = 292) beliefs and knowledge about memory, drawing on their own personal experiences about how memory works. Participants took part in an online survey programmed on Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). The survey used 5-point Likert scales requiring agreement/disagreement with 10 relevant statements about human memory that have been commonly used in prior surveys. Findings indicated that the sample held views generally aligned with the scientific consensus on how human memory operates and were also more closely aligned with scientific literature than indicated by previous surveys.