Unbelievable eyewitnesses: the legal system has long relied on eyewitness testimony in
the determination of guilt, but how reliable are eyewitnesses? Researcher Cara Laney
takes a look at how and when eyewitness testimony can be less than believable
Pub:Psychology Review
Detail:Cara Laney. 15.2 (Nov 2009): p.9(5). (3378 words) From General OneFile.
Full Text:COPYRIGHT 2009 Philip Allan Updates
Eyewitness testimony is what happens when an eyewitness gets up on the stand and
recalls for the court all the details of the crime that they saw. It is also the complicated
process leading up to the witness standing in that courtroom. This includes what happens
during the actual crime to facilitate or hamper witnessing, as well as everything that
happens between the criminal event and the courtroom appearance. This may include the
witness being interviewed by the police--perhaps several times--and numerous lawyers,
describing the perpetrator to several different people, making an identification of the
perpetrator and other steps. This article addresses just a few of those steps.
In court, the testimony of victims and eyewitnesses is often trusted more than other kinds
of evidence because the witnesses were present when the crime was committed and can
describe what happened from their own memories. This kind of testimony is particularly
compelling for several reasons.
* It is often quite specific and detailed.
* It is normally conveyed with a great deal of confidence (particularly after several
interviews).
* It is also often accompanied by substantial emotional weight.
And yet, eyewitness testimony is often quite unreliable for a variety of reasons. Several
of these reasons--as well as possible ways to prevent eyewitness errors--are discussed
below.
Why research eyewitness testimony?
Eyewitness testimony has been a popular research topic for cognitive psychologists,
social psychologists, and specialised forensic psychologists since the 1970s. Several areas
of eyewitness testimony research are touched on in this article. However, these areas are
really just the tip of the iceberg.
The best reason to research eyewitness testimony is that this research can ultimately be
used to prevent eyewitness errors. That is, this research has the potential to make a real
difference to people's lives--by making the justice system work better.
Classic eyewitness testimony research
Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed participants short films of car accidents and then asked
them questions about what they had seen. Some participants were asked, 'About how fast
were the cars going when they hit each other?' Other participants were instead asked how
fast the cars were going when they smashed into each other or bumped each other. Those
who were given a question using smashed later estimated that the cars were going faster
than those given questions using other verbs. Participants asked about cars that smashed
were also more likely to report that there was broken glass in the video (which there was
not).
Another classic 1970s study looked at the importance of positive lineup (or identity
parade) identifications. Loftus (1974; see also Loftus 1979) gave three different groups of
participants slightly different versions of a case against a particular defendant. All three
versions of the story included the same circumstantial evidence. The three versions varied
in their eyewitness evidence. For one group, there was no eyewitness identification; just
18% of these participants voted guilty. For the second group, there was a single positive
identification made by an eyewitness and 72% found this compelling enough to vote for
conviction.
For the third group, there was an identification but it was, critically, a poor quality, even
useless, identification. In this case, the witness had poor vision and so could not actually
see the perpetrator from where he was standing. That is, objectively, this identification
added nothing whatsoever to the case, so this group should have voted like the first group,
because objectively they had similar levels of evidence to work with. In fact, though, they
voted to convict at nearly the same rate as the second group (68%). That is, even though
their eyewitness evidence was useless, it had as much weight as if it were genuinely
useful. Any identification made by an eyewitness seems to be meaningful, even if it
really is not.
How lineup identifications go wrong
Lineup identifications can go wrong for a variety of different reasons, from poor initial
viewing conditions (or poor vision) to too much delay between the eye-witnessed event
and the identification. Other factors include:
* too many perpetrators (because it is harder to identify several people than one)
* too little attention paid at the time (perhaps because the eyewitness did not know that
they were witnessing a crime until later)
* severe stress caused by the eye-witnessed event (though some other types of emotions
can actually be beneficial)
Eyewitnesses' memory for the perpetrator, as well as other details of the witnessed event,
can also become contaminated by information from biased or leading questions (as in the
smashed car study described above) or details reported by co-witnesses, which I discuss
below.
Another thing that can make lineups unfair is the feedback that witnesses often get
immediately after they make a selection from a lineup. This was originally demonstrated
by Wells and Bradfield (1998). In their study, participants watched a clip of grainy
security camera footage. Then they were asked to pick the perpetrator out of a lineup. In
fact, the perpetrator was not in the lineup at all, so all participants necessarily chose
incorrectly. Some participants were then told that they had correctly identified the suspect.
Other (control) participants were not given this feedback. Relative to the control group,
those given positive feedback were, perhaps unsurprisingly, more confident that they had
chosen correctly. What is surprising, though, is that they also reported better memories
for the witnessed event, faster estimates of their time to make the identification and even
clearer views of the original event.
This has been termed the 'postidentification feedback effect'. This effect is problematic,
because it means that judgements of confidence and memory made after an identification
are not trustworthy. This is a bad thing, because juries put huge stock in the confidence of
eyewitnesses. An eyewitness who reports that he/she was extremely confident when
he/she made her identification is believed much more than an eyewitness who says he/she
was not confident.
The solution to this problem is to run lineups 'double blind'. This term is borrowed from
medical research, where most studies are run double blind. This means that neither the
patient nor the person handing out pills knows which condition--the active drug condition
or the placebo condition--the patient is in. That way, the doctor cannot accidentally give
out hints that let the patient know whether they are receiving the active drug. If lineups
were run double blind, with neither the lineup administrator nor the witness knowing who
the suspect is, then the lineup administrator would not be able to tell the eyewitness that
he had picked the suspect, because the administrator would not know.
Co-witnesses
As already mentioned, witnesses tend to talk to one another, which is problematic. When
two, three or more people witness the same crime, they are quite likely to share their
perceptions with one another immediately afterwards--for instance, while they wait for
police to arrive. They may also end up bonding over the event and talk more on a later
occasion.
But because different witnesses are different people with different perspectives, they will
see or notice different things and thus remember different things. So, when they
communicate with one another about the crime, they not only reinforce common
memories for the event, they also contaminate each other's memories, much as leading
questions contaminate memory.
What Eric did
This effect was modelled in the laboratory. Gary et al. (2007) asked participants to watch
a video in groups of two. Both participants sat in front of the same screen, but one
participant wore glasses polarised in one direction, and the other wore classes polarised in
the other direction. Two different versions of the same video were projected onto the
screen the participants were watching. So, although they were both watching the same
screen and believed (quite reasonably) that they were watching the same video, they were
actually watching two different versions of the video.
In the video, Eric the electrician is seen wandering through an unoccupied house stealing
various items. A total of eight details were different between the two videos.
After watching the videos, the co-witnesses worked together on 12 memory test questions.
Four of these questions dealt with details that were different in the two versions of the
video, so participants had the chance to influence each other.
Then participants worked individually on 20 additional memory test questions. Eight of
these were for details that were different in the two videos.
The results from these eight questions are the most interesting. For the new questions,
where no discussion occurred, participants answered an average of nearly 80% right. But
for questions where they had previously discussed their answers with a fellow participant
who saw something slightly different, accuracy fell to below 40%. That is, participants
allowed their co-witnesses to corrupt their memories about what they had seen.
False memories
Several of the studies already discussed prove that memory can become distorted by new
information, including information from leading questions or co-witnesses. But
additional research shows that wholly false memories can be created for events that never
took place.
In the original false memory study, Loftus and Pickrell (1995) first called up their
participants' family members to ask for some events from the participants' childhoods.
The researchers then brought the participants into the laboratory and told them that they
had talked to their families. They said that their families had provided details of four
different childhood events. This was actually the case for three of the events, but the
fourth was made up by the researchers. The researchers told the participants that they had
been lost in a shopping mall as children. The researchers had, in fact, asked the families
about this event too, but to make sure that it did not happen. Participants were asked to
think about the four events and to describe them in a booklet in as much detail as they
could remember. They were then interviewed about the events on two different occasions.
By the end of the study, the participants had provided details about some 68% of the true
memories and also 25% of the false memories. Participants sometimes provided
substantial detail about being lost in the mall, even though it was made up by the
researchers.
More recent research has looked at other aspects of false memory creation, including the
extent to which false memories can be emotional. There is some evidence that jurors put
even more stock into emotional testimony than they put into eyewitness testimony
generally. As mentioned previously, jurors seem to think that any eyewitness
identification (even one from an unreliable eyewitness) is good evidence that the
defendant is guilty. Jurors also seem to assume that, if the witness is extremely emotional
when describing their memory, then their memory must be accurate. But this is actually
an empirical question. Are emotional memories necessarily true memories or can false
memories be emotional too?
To find out, Laney and Loftus (2008) compared true and false memories for the same
three emotional childhood events: being hospitalised overnight, catching one's parents
having sex and witnessing a physically violent fight between one's parents. The
researchers gave some participants false memories for these events, using a false
feedback procedure, and found other participants who had true memories for the same
events. The two types of memories were then compared to see which were more
emotional. If an emotional memory is necessarily a true memory, then when the two
types of memories are measured on a scale of emotionality, the true memories should
come out far ahead of the false memories. That is, if an emotional memory is necessarily
a true memory, then there should be no such thing as an emotional false memory. So, a
false memory for a particular emotional event should be much less emotional than a true
memory for the same emotional event.
The results did not, however, show that true emotional memories were more intense than
false ones. Instead, the two types of memories were virtually identical in terms of their
emotionality. This means that false memories can be emotional and that the assumption
that emotional memories are necessarily true memories is false.
Minimising errors
Eyewitness testimony research has made a variety of suggestions for ways to improve the
justice system, some of which have been implemented in the real world. Examples of
things that can be done and are being implemented in some places are:
* use of interview techniques that minimise leading questions
* double blind lineups
* sequential lineups (where witnesses make 'yes' or 'no' judgements to each of a series of
individuals, rather than choosing the 'best' from a group of individuals in a simultaneous
lineup)
* the use of live or video lineups rather than photographs (often called '6-packs' in the
USA and on television shows like Law & Order and CSI)
Conclusions
Eyewitness testimony is powerful and convincing to jurors, even though it is not
particularly reliable. Identification errors occur and these errors can lead to people being
falsely accused and even convicted. Likewise, eyewitness memory can be corrupted by
leading questions, misinterpretations of events, and conversations with co-witnesses.
People can even come to remember whole events that never occurred. However, some of
these errors can be minimised by psychologists working with the justice system.
Key words
Co-witnesses
Eyewitness testimony
Leading questions
Emotional memory
False memory
Lineup identification
Student activities
Tutors, examiners, researches and textbook writers all tell us how important it is to be
active in our learning Anthony Curtis gives some useful activities that will consolidate
and enhance your understanding of the article you have just read.
1 Having read Cara Laney's article--which focuses on how and when eyewitness
testimony can be less than believable--now work through the following questions. You
may want to discuss your answers with your fellow students in small groups, or you may
prefer simply to discuss the questions in a whole group plenary.
2 Cara Laney highlights a range of different reasons as to how and why eyewitness
testimony may be unreliable. Before we examine some of these in more detail, it is useful
just to stand back for a moment and ask yourself what is meant by the term 'eyewitness
testimony'. For example, does this term refer only to accounts that are presented in a
court of law? What about police interviews, for example? What forms of testimony
would they include? Consider the following:
* recall of people, places and events
* recall of stressful and non-stressful events
You will soon discover that there is much more to the term 'eyewitness testimony' than
you might think. Active reconstruction of previous events often involves interrelated
processes of perception, attention, memory, language and thought. Perhaps this is one
reason why this applied research field is growing all the time and can be quite complex to
understand in detail.
3 Cara Laney cites the work of Elizabeth Loftus on eyewitness testimony. She worked
with Loftus recently while completing her PhD thesis. No doubt you know and
understand these classic studies of eyewitness account by Loftus, having studied them in
class. Laney's article explains some of the wider factors involved in eyewitness testimony
which Loftus' early research focused on, but did not elaborate further (e.g. problems
involving selective attention, stress and other co-witnesses). All this may influence or
affect the 'believability' or 'trustworthiness' of witnesses in court.
* Make a list of all the factors discussed by Laney in her article which may affect the
accuracy of eyewitness testimony and explain, in your own words, how you consider
these factors might affect the reliability of the subsequent testimony. This is important; it
is not enough at A-level simply to state things like, 'And this resulted in poorer recall of
events'. Instead, you need to explain how, or in what ways, specific factors produced
specific kinds of effects e.g.
The 'post-identification feedback effect' may distort the memory of
events because participants who are given 'false', but positive,
feedback following identification of suspects from a lineup were
more confident, reported better memories, gave faster estimates of
their times to make identifications and even reported clearer views
of the event compared with a control group, who did not receive
positive feedback,
To maximise your AO2 marks, you can then elaborate this by saying, 'This suggests
that...' or 'The implications of these findings are that...'
4 Cara Laney also writes about the powerful effect of the so-called 'co-witnesses' in
influencing recall accuracy in different ways (e.g. positively, through reinforcing
common memories or negatively, through leading questions, which may then
contaminate individual memories).
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
* Read and briefly summarise in your own words the study by Gary et al. (2007)
involving 'Eric the electrician', showing how other people may corrupt memories of an
event. How might you design a study investigating both the positive and negative effects
of the presence of others on eyewitness memory (e.g. in comparison with a control group)?
Focus here on what you may already know about how the presence of others may help us
contaminate or consolidate factual information.
* Do you think, therefore, that the presence of others is a good or a bad thing in
enhancing the reliability of eyewitness testimony? Explain and justify (i.e. elaborate)
your answer.
5 Cara Laney also reports that false memories can be created for events that never took
place. These memories are usually emotional in nature and rooted in childhood
disturbances. The study Laney cites by Laney and Loftus (2008) shows that the true
memories were no more or less emotional than the false ones. This is contrary to the
belief that it is only true memories about an emotional event that are genuinely emotional
and this, intriguingly, suggests that emotion can attach itself to either type of memory.
Given that jurors seem to attach more weight to 'emotional' eyewitness testimonies, what
are the implications of the findings by Laney and Loftus? For example, should we
encourage jurors not to be swayed by the emotional content of testimonies and focus
instead on the evidence that is presented?
6 Read the wider recommendations provided by Cara Laney for minimising errors in the
justice system, thereby improving it. What other recommendations can you provide for
courts in general and jurors in particular?
7 Visit Elizabeth Loftus's website at http://faculty.washington.edu/ eloftus/and browse
some of her key articles on eyewitness testimony. Many will take you to further studies
that are not covered in your psychology textbook. In addition, Wikipedia provides a
comprehensive summary of the wider contribution of Elizabeth Loftus to psychology at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Loftus
These two sites will give you an idea of just how significant a contribution Elizabeth
Loftus has made. In 2002, Loftus came fifty-eighth on a list of the 100 most influential
researchers in psychology in the twentieth century and the highest-ranked woman on the
list. As a professor of psychology and of law, Elizabeth Loftus has made a unique and
lasting contribution to our understanding of how psychology continues to play a crucial
role in the legal system in general and the reliability of eyewitness testimony in particular.
Anthony Curtis is Head of Psychology at Hartpury College, UWE, Associate Lecturer at
De Montfort University and an editor of PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW.
References
Gary, M. et al. (2007) 'Eyewitness memory following discussion: using the MORI
technique with a Western sample', Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 431-39.
Laney, C. and Loftus, E. F. (2008) 'Emotional content of true and false memories',
Memory, Vol. 16, pp. 500-16.
Loftus, E. F. (1974) 'Reconstructing memory: the incredible eyewitness', Psychology
Today, Vol. 8, pp. 116-19.
Loftus, E. F. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony, Harvard University Press.
Loftus, E. F. and Palmer, J. C. (1974) 'Reconstruction of automobile destruction', Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 13, pp. 585-89.
Loftus, E. F. and Pickrell, J. E. (1995) 'The formation of false memories', Psychiatric
Annals, Vol. 25, pp. 720-25.
Wells, G. L. and Bradfield, A. L. (1998) '"Good, you identified the suspect":
feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience', Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 360-76.
Dr Cara Laney is a lecturer in forensic psychology at the University of Leicester. She
completed her PhD at the University of California in 2006, working with Elizabeth
Loftus. Her primary research area is human memory and the various interesting ways that
it can go wrong.
Source Citation
Laney, Cara. "Unbelievable eyewitnesses: the legal system has long relied on eyewitness
testimony in the determination of guilt, but how reliable are eyewitnesses? Researcher
Cara Laney takes a look at how and when eyewitness testimony can be less than
believable." Psychology Review Nov. 2009: 9+. General OneFile. Web. 29 Nov. 2010.
Document URL
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/infomark.do?&contentSet=IACDocuments&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=IPS&docId=A212276558&source=gal
e&srcprod=ITOF&userGroupName=camb70211&version=1.0
Gale Document Number:A212276558