Eyewitness Testimony Errors
How reliable is our memory really? We depend on our memory for many aspects of life; however, sometimes we actually remember a misrepresentation of what’s really occurred. This is known as the misinformation effect, where misleading information distorts our memory of the true event. Important in a variety of aspects, these memory errors become especially crucial in terms of courtrooms and eyewitness testimony. Interestingly, 75% of false convictions are due to an eyewitness identifying the wrong person or misreporting how an event actually occurred. Witnesses aren’t intentionally committing these fallacies, but by relying on their misconstrued memory, they genuinely believe they are helping convict the guilty party. The consequences that arise
…show more content…
from the misinformation effect have real-world implications as it clearly influences our judicial system and how we think about our memories, also known as metamemory.
In an experiment done by Loftus and Palmer (1974), subjects were shown pictures of car collisions.
After being asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, subjects reported a 20% higher average speed in comparison to those who were asked how fast the cars were going when they “hit” each other. The use of these terms biased the subjects’ estimates of speed, hereby altering their recollection of the event. Following a week later, all subjects were asked if they’d seen any broken glass at the scene. Although no glass was actually present, those in the “smashed” condition were more likely to report yes. Not only did certain terms induce bias within initial assessment, but the subtle suggestion of broken glass also affected what the subjects later remembered. Therefore, similar to eyewitness testimony, wording and subtle suggestions can influence people to remember an event in a particular way, even to the extent that they remember aspects that never occurred. In a similar experiment done by Loftus et. al (1979), subjects were shown a video and asked how fast a car was going when passing a yield sign. However, in this video, there was no yield sign. Due to this insertion of misinformation, the yield condition felt more familiar and when presented with two images, one with a yield sign and one with a stop sign, subjects more often chose the inaccurate image containing the yield sign. Therefore, the introduction of information following an event can also change recall – further highlighting the misinformation
effect.
In order to learn more about the misinformation effect, future research needs to test strategies that combat this effect. Due to ethical reasons, experiments are limited in what researchers can do. Further, psychologists have conducted most of the research on eyewitness memory. Although the criminal justice system conducts its own research, it does so dissimilarly from psychologists. Therefore, future research needs to involve both the psychological and forensic perspective in order to learn more about the misinformation effect. Additionally, future experiments need to focus conducting applied research as opposed to basic research to increase the applicability of the findings. A combined platform allows for a more realistic, relevant experiment than previous research has provided. Likewise, an interesting question that deserves further exploration is the extent of suggestibility on a person’s memory. Others have found that certain traits and characteristics can increase one’s suggestibility to information. Therefore, possible research could focus on these susceptible traits and if their effect is more powerful in combination with other traits. This would provide essential information to memory experts when determining the credibility of an eyewitness and their testimony in court. Unlike TV shows involving an extensive amount of DNA, the real judicial system relies heavily on eyewitness testimony and their memory. However, as indicated, this memory isn’t always reliable and varies by witness, event, and the presence of misinformation. Therefore, by delving further into research regarding the misinformation effect, we can improve our current system to either improve eyewitness testimony or investigate more reliable interventions to implement.
from the misinformation effect have real-world implications as it clearly influences our judicial system and how we think about our memories, also known as metamemory.
In an experiment done by Loftus and Palmer (1974), subjects were shown pictures of car collisions.
After being asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, subjects reported a 20% higher average speed in comparison to those who were asked how fast the cars were going when they “hit” each other. The use of these terms biased the subjects’ estimates of speed, hereby altering their recollection of the event. Following a week later, all subjects were asked if they’d seen any broken glass at the scene. Although no glass was actually present, those in the “smashed” condition were more likely to report yes. Not only did certain terms induce bias within initial assessment, but the subtle suggestion of broken glass also affected what the subjects later remembered. Therefore, similar to eyewitness testimony, wording and subtle suggestions can influence people to remember an event in a particular way, even to the extent that they remember aspects that never occurred. In a similar experiment done by Loftus et. al (1979), subjects were shown a video and asked how fast a car was going when passing a yield sign. However, in this video, there was no yield sign. Due to this insertion of misinformation, the yield condition felt more familiar and when presented with two images, one with a yield sign and one with a stop sign, subjects more often chose the inaccurate image containing the yield sign. Therefore, the introduction of information following an event can also change recall – further highlighting the misinformation
effect.
In order to learn more about the misinformation effect, future research needs to test strategies that combat this effect. Due to ethical reasons, experiments are limited in what researchers can do. Further, psychologists have conducted most of the research on eyewitness memory. Although the criminal justice system conducts its own research, it does so dissimilarly from psychologists. Therefore, future research needs to involve both the psychological and forensic perspective in order to learn more about the misinformation effect. Additionally, future experiments need to focus conducting applied research as opposed to basic research to increase the applicability of the findings. A combined platform allows for a more realistic, relevant experiment than previous research has provided. Likewise, an interesting question that deserves further exploration is the extent of suggestibility on a person’s memory. Others have found that certain traits and characteristics can increase one’s suggestibility to information. Therefore, possible research could focus on these susceptible traits and if their effect is more powerful in combination with other traits. This would provide essential information to memory experts when determining the credibility of an eyewitness and their testimony in court. Unlike TV shows involving an extensive amount of DNA, the real judicial system relies heavily on eyewitness testimony and their memory. However, as indicated, this memory isn’t always reliable and varies by witness, event, and the presence of misinformation. Therefore, by delving further into research regarding the misinformation effect, we can improve our current system to either improve eyewitness testimony or investigate more reliable interventions to implement.