PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony

4. Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony

Our minds are not like cameras. Our brains do not take pictures of events which are then later recalled with 100% accuracy. Many things can affect how we remember events. Our pre-existing biases and stereotypes can colour our memories, as can information that is received after the event. Our memories for events are reconstructed from various sources; things that happened at the time are combined with other information. This means that what we think we remember may not always be accurate.

This issue of the fallibility of human memory is especially important when considering the role of memory in the law. Eyewitnesses to crimes recall their memories in court rooms, and errors in memory can lead to the wrongful conviction (or wrongful acquittal) of defendants. The Innocence project is an organisation which works to clear the names of wrongly convicted people. They claim that eyewitness misidentification is the greatest single cause of wrongful convictions in the USA, convictions that were later overturned by DNA evidence.

Much of the research into the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (EWT) comes from the cognitive approach. Therefore, much of the evidence is based on scientific methods such as lab studies. The factors we will be looking at are reconstructive memory, and the role of emotion. The book contains more information on face recognition and attributional biases. 1. Reconstructive memory: Schemas Bartlett (1932) first proposed the theory that memory is not always a complete reproduction of a witnessed event. He argued that memory is reconstructed from various pieces of information. This means that memories can often be inaccurate. He argued that interpretation plays a major role in the remembering of past events, and that remembering can be seen as effort after meaning, that is trying to make the past more logical, coherent and generally sensible. We reconstruct the past by trying to make it fit into our existing understanding of the world. Bartlett called our existing understanding of the world schema (plural schemata) What is a schema? ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________

Bartlett argued that schemata help us make sense of the world. It helps us make the world more predictable, and can provide us with ready-made expectations. However, these schemata can also have a powerful effect on our memories. Schemata often fill the gaps of our memory when our memories are incomplete. They can also produce significant distortions in memory because they have a powerful effect of the way events are encoded. Remember Carmichael (1932). Briefly describe what we did, what it found, and what it suggests.

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony A study by Cohen (1981) showed how an individuals schema for particular occupations can affect recall. He showed participants a video tape to participants and described the woman as either a waitress or a librarian. Participants were then asked questions about the woman such as What was she doing? Participants were more likely to recall those details which fitted with the stereotype for the job they had been told about. Bartlett would argue that this shows that information inconsistent with an existing schema is ignored. But how could this apply to crime? Pre-existing schemata may alter the way that a person remembers a crime. They may misremember, or even forget information that does not fit with their schema. A classic example of this is the famous study by Allport and Postman (1947). They investigated the effect of stereotypes on recall. A stereotype is simply a schema containing beliefs about a certain group of people. In their study they showed white participants the following picture of a black person being held at knifepoint by a white man. How did the participants recall this picture when asked later? _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________ How can we explain this finding using Bartletts theory of schemata? ________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Modern research provides some evidence for the role of stereotypes. Tuckey and Brewer (2003) investigated stereotyped recall of a bank robbery. What are the stereotypical features of a bank robbery? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Tuckey and Brewer found that when participants were questioned later on their recall of a video of a bank robbery, they recalled more details that fitted with the stereotype of a bank robber (such as bank robbers being male). This supports the theory that we are better at remembering things that fit with our stereotypes (schemata). However, the study also found that participants were also good at remembering counterstereotyped information, such as the fact that the robbers did not have guns. How could we explain this finding? __________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Evaluation Cohen (1981), Allport and Postman (1947) and Tuckey and Brewer (2003) used lab experiments to test their theories. What can be an issue with this, particularly in terms of validity? ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 2

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony Also, particularly in Allport and Postmans research, they only used white participants. Why might this be an issue? __________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Allport and Postman took place in in 1947 _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ All of the evidence here is experimental. Could we investigate the role of schemata and stereotypes in real cases? What methodological issues would there be? _________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Reconstructive memory: Leading questions In the box below, write down everything you can remember about Loftus and Palmer (1974)

A criticism of Loftus and Palmers experiment is that judging speed is complex, and therefore the participants more prone to being led by leading questions. Loftus and Zanni (1975) showed participants a film of a car accident. Some participants were asked Did you see a broken headlight? whereas others were asked Did you see the broken headlight? 7% of those asked about a broken headlight reported seeing one, whereas 17% asked about the headlight reported one. (There was not one in the video). This research demonstrates that leading questions can actually cause participants to remember something that was not there.

However, not all memories seem to be able to be influenced by leading questions. Loftus (1979) showed participants a series of pictures of a man stealing a red wallet from a womans bag. 98% of participants were able to identify the colour correctly. Later, Loftus used leading questions to try and alter the participants recall. However, they persisted in describing the purse as red. This research contradicts Loftus and Palmer, as it suggests that in some circumstances, leading questions have a limited effect on memory. It may be that the information to be remembered in this study was less subjective than estimating speed. 3

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony Evaluation A big problem with a lot of the research into leading questions is that much of it is highly artificial as it takes place under lab conditions. This may lead to issues of generalisability. o Yullie and Cutshall (1986) interviewed 13 people who had witnessed a real armed robbery in Canada four months after. They included two misleading questions. They found that the participants were not led by the leading questions, and the accounts that they gave were very similar to those in their initial witness statements o This possibly suggests that the effect of leading questions is diminished in real life situations where there are great personal consequences for the individual. However, research into the effect of leading questions has led to the development of the cognitive interview. This is a special type of interview used by the police. The interview is structured in such a way as to avoid leading questions, and to maintain the accuracy of the EWT.

Revision Check: Can you... Explain the theory of how schemata can influence memory? (AO1) Provide evidence to support this theory? (AO1/2) Explain how leading questions can influence memory? (AO1) Provide evidence to support this theory? (AO1/2) Evaluate this evidence (AO2) Evaluate these theories (AO2)

3. The role of emotion Would you remember things better or worse if you were filled with emotion? __________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Does emotion improve or impede memory? When someone either witnesses or is the victim of a crime, they are liable to feel a great deal of intense emotions, fear and anger being two main ones. These high levels of emotion may impede or maybe improve the memory for the event. What would Freud claim about the effect of emotion on memory? _________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ We might expect to find that crimes were the witness is under a great deal of stress to lead to poorer recall than lower stress crimes. Deffenbacher et al (2004) performed a meta-analysis on studies of eyewitness recall and found that high stress had a negative impact on accuracy, supporting this theory. However, MacLeod et al (1986) investigated real life eyewitness reports of 379 physical assaults, and compared them to crime where no physical injury occurred. They found that there was no overall difference in accuracy between the two types of crime, suggesting that levels of emotion do not make a difference to recall. Other evidence suggests that recall can be improved by high levels of emotion. Christianson and Hubinette (1993) found that witnesses to real bank robberies who had been threatened had better recall than onlookers who were not involved. All of the evidence above is based on real life cases of crime. This is an advantage because ____________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 4

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony However_______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Could there be another reason why the witnesses who had been threatened had a better recall than onlookers? _____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ What would the study by Yullie and Cutshall (1986) above suggest about the effect of emotion of memory? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Flashbulb memories One possible theory to explain how emotion may improve memory is flashbulb memories. Brown and Kulik (1977) first coined this term to describe vivid, long-lasting memories which occur at times of heightened emotion. They noticed that people were able to describe exactly what they were doing when they heard of JFKs assassination. Flashbulb memories were so named because it seems as if the mind has "taken a picture" of the event. Famous examples of common flashbulb memories include 9/11 and Princess Dianas death. Flashbulb memories are different from normal memories as they seem to last a lifetime, they are highly detailed, and supposedly immune to decay. Where were you when you heard the news of Michael Jacksons death?

Lots of research suggests that flashbulb memories do exist, and that they may be a special type of memory that is resistant to change. Odiniot et al (2009) interviewed 14 witnesses to an armed robbery and checked their recall against security footage. They found that 84% of the information recalled was correct, and that the witnesses who reported a higher level of emotional impact had the most accurate recall. However, other research suggests that the confidence that we have in these flashbulb memories is not a truthful representation of how accurate they really are. Talarico and Rubin (2003) got 54 students to recall their memories of the 9/11 attacks on September 12th 2001 (the day after the event). They also asked about another recent event such as a birthday party or a study session. They were tested again 1, 6, or 32 weeks later. Consistency for the flashbulb and everyday memories did not differ, in both cases declining over time. However, the participants rated their recall of 9/11 as being much more vivid, and had a greater confidence in its accuracy.

This is an important factor related to EWT, as eyewitnesses may be asked to give evidence months or even years after an event. This study suggests that highly emotional memories may feel more accurate than they actually are. This may lead eyewitnesses to overestimate their accuracy, and be over confident. If asked to give evidence in court, this confidence may be a deciding factor for juries. Nolan and Markham (1998) found that confident witnesses were more likely to be seen as credible (i.e. accurate) compared with anxious or unsure witnesses, even though actual accuracy may not differ. 5

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony Weapon focus However, the effect of emotion can be clouded if weapons are present. Research has suggested that witnesses often focus on a weapon at the expense of other details such as face or clothes. This is known as weapon focus (or the weapon effect). Loftus first proposed the weapon effect after noticing that in a crime where a weapon is involved, it is not unusual for a witness to be able to describe the weapon in much more detail than the person holding it. Loftus et al. (1987) showed participants a series of slides of a customer in a restaurant. In one version the customer was holding a gun, in the other the same customer held a check book. Participants who saw the gun version tended to focus on the gun. As a result they were less likely to identify the customer in an identity parade those who had seen the check book version Johnson and Scott (1978): Participants overheard an argument in an adjoining room. In the first condition, a man came into the room where the participants were, holding a pen covered in grease. In the second condition, he came in with a knife covered in blood. Participants were then asked to identify the man from a series of photos. 49% of those in the pen condition could identify the man, compared with 33% of those in the knife condition. What does this suggest? __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ What advantage does Johnson and Scotts research have over Loftus? _____________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ Evaluation There are a great many ways in which people react to shocking events. Some get angry, some are scared, and others may feel no emotion until the event is over, remaining calm throughout. As there are such great individual differences between people, can we really come to any overall generalisations about the effect of emotion on memory? What do we mean by emotion? Many of the studies look at emotion and memory without really specifying what they mean by emotion. As mentioned above, not everyone would react in the same way to witnessing a crime, so when referring to high levels of emotion, do we mean fear, anger etc.?

The evidence as to whether emotion enhances or impedes memory is unclear. However, The Yerkes Dodson curve which shows the relationship between emotional arousal and level of performance on a task may provide an answer (performance here can be classed as ability to remember). Draw a rough line to show this relationship.

Could this theory explain the contradictory evidence of the effect of emotion on memory? ________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ 6

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony Weapon focus does not always have an effect. For example, in the study by Yullie and Cutshall, the weapon effect did not happen. It may also be reasonable to argue that the weapon effect would be dependent upon the length of time the crime took. For example, a quick robbery in a corner shop which lasted a minute may lead to a weapon focus, whereas a prolonged hostage situation may give the witnesses longer to overcome the weapon focus and be able to take in more details, such as facial features.

Revision Check: Can you... Explain how emotion, including flashbulb memories and weapon focus can influence memory? (AO1) Provide evidence to support this theory? (AO1/2) Evaluate this evidence (AO2) Evaluate these theories (AO2)

Overall Evaluation It is vitally important for police and courts to understand how accurate the testimony of eyewitnesses is. As the Innocence project mentioned earlier states; most wrongful convictions are due to faulty EWT. Evidence states that EWT is often the most powerful type of evidence that can be presented. o Using a fictitious case, Loftus (1974) asked participants to assess guilt on a robbery and murder case. When there was no eyewitness evidence, 18% found the defendant guilty. When there was an eyewitness, 72% found him guilty. When there was an eyewitness, but the participants were told to ignore this evidence as the witness was short sighted and not wearing glasses, 68% still found him guilty! This suggests that not only does EWT have a massive effect on juries, but also that possibly having no eyewitness is better than a bad one. The Devlin Committee was set up in 1973 to review the process of the identification and prosecution of crimes. It was found that of the 347 cases where prosecution occurred when EWT was the only evidence, 74 were convicted. This shows the overwhelming weight given to EWT by juries. Subsequently, the Devlin committee recommended that the trial judge be required to instruct the jury that it isnt safe to convict on a single EWT alone.

One problem however is that much of the research into EWT has been by the use of lab experiments, The artificial environment of the lab is a world away from being a witness to a real life crime. o Emotions: __________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ o Realism: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ o Demand characteristics: _______________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ o Consequences: _____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________

PY4: Forensic psychology: Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony On the other hand, an issue with much of the research into memory is that in real life cases, there is often no objective way of telling whether or not what the participant recalls is actually what happened. In some cases, eyewitness recall can be compared with security footage, but where researchers do not have access to this, they only have the recall of the witness to go on. If the witness says that the bank robber was wearing a blue shirt, how do we know if he really was, or if the witness is misremembering? A further problem with using real life cases of crime is that of extraneous variables. Every crime is different; no two are the same. They all take place in different locations, under different circumstances, with different outcomes. It may not be appropriate to draw conclusions or comparisons between such varied and chaotic events. Therefore, you could argue that lab studies, while artificial and possibly ecologically invalid allow us to isolate variables and make more concrete conclusions. Linked in with this point is the argument that reconstructive memory and the role of emotion may have very different effects in different crime. For example, witnessing a shoplifter may be strongly influenced by the former, whereas a violent or sexual assault may be more affected by the latter. Culture bias? _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Gender differences? ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________