Abstract
Cognitive scientists have firmly established that memory is vulnerable to decay and distortion. Yet laypeople - who may be required to evaluate memory evidence as jurors - have shown less awareness of memory fallibility. Although we might expect laypeople's knowledge of memory to have improved over time, research has yet to explore this issue while accounting for possible age-related changes. We administered a modified version of the Beliefs about Memory Survey (BAMS) to a community sample, investigating patterns of beliefs relating to memory permanence, repression of traumatic memories, and memory reconstruction. Older participants were more likely than younger participants to believe that traumatic memories can be repressed, while younger participants were more likely than their older counterparts to believe that memory is permanent, but also that memory is malleable. We assessed whether these beliefs were stable over time, by comparing our data to a sample of data collected 25 years earlier. Although contemporary beliefs about the repression of traumatic memories and memory reconstruction were more aligned with expert opinion than those of 25 years ago, beliefs about memory permanence were not. These findings highlight the need for continued education about memory and its shortcomings. We discuss ways of improving decisions about memory evidence.