Further Caution Is Required on What Memory Experts Can Reliably Say

Abstract

Here, we respond to Otgaar, Howe, and Dodier’s (2022, “OHD”) article laying out a framework for how psychologists can reliably give opinion evidence about memory. Specifically, they say that memory experts providing evidence to courts should draw on research that is replicable, generalizable, and practically relevant (Otgaar et al, 2022, p. 3). We commend OHD for their important work. However, we suggest that additional caution should be taken when assessing whether psychological research is replicable, generalizable, and practically relevant. We will now briefly discuss those characteristics of legal psychological research in reference to two general points: psychologists should be alert to factors such as publication bias, questionable research practices, and heterogeneity in the psychological research – and convey that uncertainty to factfinders (see, e.g., Lewis & Wai, 2021).

Keywords: expert evidence, law and psychology, publication bias, questionable research practices, replication, generalizability, effect sizes

JEL Classification: K14, K40