DOJ-OGR-00016613.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on August 10, 2022, detailing the direct examination of a witness named Loftus. Loftus, likely an expert on memory, explains how labeling ambiguous objects or events can significantly alter a person's subsequent recollection. The testimony uses examples such as remembering an object as either 'eyeglasses' or 'dumbbells' and an event as an 'incident' versus a 'fight' to illustrate how labels shape memory construction.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Loftus | Witness |
Mentioned in the header as the subject of a direct examination ("Loftus - direct") and is the speaker for all answers...
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | Company |
Listed at the bottom of the document as the court reporting agency.
|
Relationships (1)
The document is a transcript of a formal question-and-answer session, specifically a direct examination in a legal proceeding, between a questioner and the witness, Loftus.
Key Quotes (2)
"If it got labeled as eyeglasses, people remembered it as more like eyeglasses. If it got labeled as dumbbells, people later remembered it as looking more like dumbbells. That's just an example of how you can label something ambiguous and it will affect people's memory for what they saw."Source
— Loftus
(Explaining how applying a label to an ambiguous object alters a person's memory of that object.)
DOJ-OGR-00016613.jpg
Quote #1
"In one of our older studies, we found that labeling something as an incident, which is really fairly neutral, has a different affect than when you label the thing that happened as a fight. People are more likely to construct an image of a fight, probably because of that label."Source
— Loftus
(Providing an example of how labeling an event with words that have different emotional connotations can change how the event is remembered.)
DOJ-OGR-00016613.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,514 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 130 of 246 2425
LCGCmax4
1 something that could vaguely look like it might be eyeglasses
2 or whatever, very ambiguous. If it got labeled as eyeglasses,
3 people remembered it as more like eyeglasses. If it got
4 labeled as dumbbells, people later remembered it as looking
5 more like dumbbells. That's just an example of how you can
6 label something ambiguous and it will affect people's memory
7 for what they saw.
8 Q. So if two people, let's say, are having a conversation
9 concerning an event, and one of the individuals characterizes
10 it in some colorful fashion that the other one may not have
11 considered, would that be a situation where the memory might
12 become labeled?
13 A. Yes, absolutely. In one of our older studies, we found
14 that labeling something as an incident, which is really fairly
15 neutral, has a different affect than when you label the thing
16 that happened as a fight. People are more likely to construct
17 an image of a fight, probably because of that label.
18 Q. Are you familiar with the term memory traces?
19 A. Memory traces?
20 Q. Yes. Or memory fragments?
21 A. Well, I suppose that every now and then somebody might talk
22 about memory fragments. Just, you would have a bit or a piece
23 of information in your memory.
24 Q. And are you familiar with situations where someone might
25 take that bit of a memory and enhance it in some way?
LCGCmax4
1 something that could vaguely look like it might be eyeglasses
2 or whatever, very ambiguous. If it got labeled as eyeglasses,
3 people remembered it as more like eyeglasses. If it got
4 labeled as dumbbells, people later remembered it as looking
5 more like dumbbells. That's just an example of how you can
6 label something ambiguous and it will affect people's memory
7 for what they saw.
8 Q. So if two people, let's say, are having a conversation
9 concerning an event, and one of the individuals characterizes
10 it in some colorful fashion that the other one may not have
11 considered, would that be a situation where the memory might
12 become labeled?
13 A. Yes, absolutely. In one of our older studies, we found
14 that labeling something as an incident, which is really fairly
15 neutral, has a different affect than when you label the thing
16 that happened as a fight. People are more likely to construct
17 an image of a fight, probably because of that label.
18 Q. Are you familiar with the term memory traces?
19 A. Memory traces?
20 Q. Yes. Or memory fragments?
21 A. Well, I suppose that every now and then somebody might talk
22 about memory fragments. Just, you would have a bit or a piece
23 of information in your memory.
24 Q. And are you familiar with situations where someone might
25 take that bit of a memory and enhance it in some way?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016613
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document