Palabras clave
memoria del testigo ocular
efecto de desinformación
entrevista forense
efecto de testeo
contaminación de la memoria
protocolos investigativos
Cómo citar
Resumen
La práctica de recuperación puede paradójicamente aumentar la vulnerabilidad a la desinformación posterior, fenómeno denominado sugestionabilidad potenciada por la recuperación (RES), con implicaciones para los protocolos de entrevista forense con múltiples intentos de recuerdo. Este meta-análisis examina la RES en contextos forenses e identifica las condiciones que moderan el efecto. Una búsqueda sistemática identificó 26 estudios (k = 72 comparaciones, N = 4 218) en contextos forenses simulados. Meta-análisis de efectos aleatorios compararon la susceptibilidad a la desinformación tras la práctica de recuperación frente a su ausencia, con análisis de moderadores (formato de prueba, fuente de la desinformación, tipo de detalle, intervalo de retención y advertencia). La práctica de recuperación se asoció con mayor aceptación de desinformación, d = 0.34, IC 95 % [0.23, 0.45], p < 0.001, I² = 56.4 %. Las pruebas de reconocimiento mostraron mayor RES (d = 0,66) que el recuerdo libre (d = 0.17); la desinformación narrativa, mayor RES (d = 0.48) que la basada en preguntas sin contexto (d = -0.19); las advertencias explícitas se asociaron con ausencia de RES detectable (d = -0.07, p = 0.41). La práctica de recuperación inicial se asoció con mayor vulnerabilidad a la desinformación, mientras que el recuerdo libre, la separación temporal y las advertencias se asociaron con efectos reducidos o ausentes, lo que contribuye a la base de evidencia para los protocolos de entrevista forense.
Adesope, O. O., Trevisan, D. A., & Sundararajan, N. (2017). Rethinking the use of tests: A meta-analysis of practice testing. Review of Educational Research, 87(3), 659–701. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689306
Anderson, M. C., & Spellman, B. A. (1995). On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Memory retrieval as a model case. Psychological Review, 102(1), 68–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.68
Branco, A. (2018). The role of authority in retrieval enhanced suggestibility (RES). Locus: The Seton Hall Journal of Undergraduate Research, 1(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.70531/2573-2749.1001
Chan, J. C. K., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2011). The dark side of testing memory: Repeated retrieval can enhance eyewitness suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 418–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025147
Chan, J. C. K., & LaPaglia, J. A. (2013). Impairing existing declarative memory in humans by disrupting reconsolidation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(23), 9309–9313. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218472110
Chan, J. C. K., & Langley, M. M. (2011). Paradoxical effects of testing: Retrieval enhances both accurate recall and suggestibility in eyewitnesses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021204
Chan, J. C. K., Manley, K., & Lang, K. (2017). Retrieval-enhanced suggestibility: A retrospective and a new investigation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.003
Chan, J. C. K., O’Donnell, R., & Manley, K. (2022). Warning weakens retrieval-enhanced suggestibility only when it is given shortly after misinformation: The critical importance of timing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(4), 694–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000394
Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility: The reversed testing effect. Psychological Science, 20(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x
Chan, J. C. K., Wilford, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2012). Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(1), 78–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.006
Diges, M. (2016). Testigos, sospechosos y recuerdos falsos: Estudios de psicología forense. Editorial Trotta.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (2010). The cognitive interview method of conducting police interviews: Eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5–6), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.004
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool. Law and Human Behavior, 33(4), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9146-8
Gordon, L. T., Bilolikar, V. K., Hodhod, T., & Thomas, A. K. (2020). How prior testing impacts misinformation processing: A dual-task approach. Memory & Cognition, 48(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00970-0
Gordon, L. T., & Thomas, A. K. (2013). Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 186–197. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0361-2
Gordon, L. T., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2015). Looking for answers in all the wrong places: How testing facilitates learning of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 83, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.007
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5
Huff, M. J., Weinsheimer, C. C., & Bodner, G. E. (2016). Reducing the misinformation effect through initial testing: Take two tests and recall me in the morning? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3167
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
Karanian, J. M., Rabb, N., Wulff, A. N., Torrance, M. G., Thomas, A. K., & Race, E. (2020). Protecting memory from misinformation: Warnings modulate cortical reinstatement during memory retrieval. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(37), 22771–22779. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008595117
Karanian, J. M., Thomas, A. K., & Race, E. (2024). Warning before misinformation exposure modulates memory encoding. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 24(3), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-024-01183-y
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11–12), 1201–1231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021
LaPaglia, J. A., & Chan, J. C. K. (2012). Retrieval does not always enhance suggestibility: Testing can improve witness identification performance. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 478–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093931
LaPaglia, J. A., & Chan, J. C. K. (2013). Testing increases suggestibility for narrative-based misinformation but reduces suggestibility for question-based misinformation. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(5), 593–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2090
LaPaglia, J. A., & Chan, J. C. K. (2019). Telling a good story: The effects of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility. PLOS ONE, 14(2), e0212592. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212592
LaPaglia, J. A., Wilford, M. M., Rivard, J. R., Chan, J. C. K., & Fisher, R. P. (2013). Misleading suggestions can alter later memory reports even following a Cognitive Interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2950
Lindsay, D. S. (2008). Source monitoring. In H. L. Roediger III (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory: Vol. 2. Learning and memory: A comprehensive reference (pp. 325–348). Elsevier.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications.
Liu, W., Huizhen, D., Siman, Z., Jiayu, Z., & Xiaoyu, W. (2024). The more stress, the more accurate memory? The influence of stress on retrieval-enhanced suggestibility effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 36(7), 793-804. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2024.2386733
Manley, K. D., & Chan, J. C. K. (2019). Does retrieval enhance suggestibility because it increases perceived credibility of the postevent information? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.06.001
Manzanero, A. L. (2010). Memoria de testigos: Obtención y valoración de la prueba testifical. Ediciones Pirámide.
Manzanero, A. L., & González, J. L. (2013). Avances en psicología del testimonio. Ediciones Jurídicas de Santiago.
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 406(6797), 722–726. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021052
Pansky, A., & Tenenboim, E. (2011). Inoculating against eyewitness suggestibility via interpolated verbatim vs. gist testing. Memory & Cognition, 39(1), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-010-0005-8
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
Saunders, J., & MacLeod, M. D. (2002). New evidence on the suggestibility of memory: The role of retrieval-induced forgetting in misinformation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.8.2.127
Schacter, D. L., Guerin, S. A., & St. Jacques, P. L. (2011). Memory distortion: An adaptive perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 467–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.08.004
Silva, E. A., Manzanero, A. L., & Contreras, M. J. (2016). La memoria y el lenguaje en pruebas testificales con menores de 3 a 6 años. Papeles del Psicólogo, 37(3), 224–230.
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242
Thomas, A. K., Bulevich, J. B., & Chan, J. C. K. (2010). Testing promotes eyewitness accuracy with a warning: Implications for retrieval enhanced suggestibility. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.04.004
Thomas, A. K., Gordon, L. T., Cernasov, P. M., & Bulevich, J. B. (2017). The effect of testing can increase or decrease misinformation susceptibility depending on the retention interval. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0081-4
Torrance, M. G., Karanian, J. M., Race, E., & Thomas, A. K. (2025). Examining the impact of warnings on eyewitness memory. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 33508. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-17377-4
Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10(4), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359
Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9130-3
Wilford, M. M., Chan, J. C. K., & Tuhn, S. J. (2014). Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000001
Wulff, A. N., Karanian, J. M., Race, E., & Thomas, A. K. (2025). Timing of pre-retrieval warnings matters in reducing memory errors in a repeated testing misinformation study. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 963. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84154-0
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.
Derechos de autor 2026 Alberto Barea Vera