Eyewitness Memory - Now You See It, Now You Don’t
Written by Kamaljit Bajwa
When there is little to no camera footage available to aid in police investigations, the courts look to eyewitness memory. Eyewitness memory is when a person (i.e., the witness) attempts to recall information regarding an event (e.g., an accident) (American Psychological Association [APA], n.d.). Eyewitness memory is seen as crucial evidence in court. It is, however, vulnerable to distortion (i.e., false memory). One example of false memory that many have heard of is the Nelson Mandela Effect. The effect is produced when numerous individuals collectively say that an event took place, even though there is no proof of that event ever having occurred (e.g., Nelson Mandela’s funeral being broadcasted on T.V.) (Dagnall, & Drinkwater, 2019). Eyewitness memory is prone to being sculpted and molded by external and internal forces. An example of external influence can be another witness (i.e., a co-witness), besides the actual eyewitness, influencing the memory of the eyewitness (i.e., memory conformity) (Gabbert et al., 2003). An example of internal influence can be the eyewitness’ mood during encoding and recall (Forgas et al., 2005). Therefore, with the various influencing forces present, many experts consider eyewitness memory to be unreliable (Wixted et al., 2018).
To better explain how eyewitness memory is impacted by false memory and other variables, let’s examine a famous study conducted by Loftus and Palmer (1974). It reveals just how malleable eyewitness memory can be. Participants watched seven videos that depicted car accidents. After viewing each video, the participants answered questions that assessed their knowledge about the speed of the car. The verbs within the question varied for participants (e.g., ‘...how fast were the cars going when they hit [smashed, collided, bumped, contacted] each other?’ When the verb ‘smashed’ was used, participants estimated a higher vehicle speed than when the other verbs were used. A follow-up experiment had similar results: Rather than being questioned immediately, participants answered questions after a one-week delay. The critical question was whether participants saw any broken glass in the video of the accident. Participants who were presented with the verb “smashed” estimated higher vehicle speeds and reported that they saw broken glass in the video. This study provides evidence of eyewitness memory’s unreliability. The phrasing of a question can affect a witness’ memory, which in extreme cases could lead to serious consequences (e.g., false conviction of an innocent person). Thus, all levels of the law, especially police officers (since they are the first to conduct police interviews with eyewitnesses), should be careful when questioning eyewitnesses.
But why do courts still use eyewitness memory as a means of convicting individuals?
Before modern technology (i.e., cameras, DNA testing) existed, many crimes were solved by utilizing only the subjective accounts of eyewitnesses. However, now that everyone carries a phone in their pockets, ready to record any odd behaviour, what is the necessity of eyewitness memory? Although eyewitness memory is considered unreliable due to the inaccuracy produced during memory recall, it is still a valuable part of an investigation when there is limited camera presence or no physical evidence (e.g., DNA) at the scene. There is now a large body of research demonstrating eyewitness memory’s unreliability; therefore, courts should be careful when considering eyewitness memory.
Many eyewitness memory studies occur in laboratory settings (Morgan et al., 2004) rather than with real-life witnesses who have experienced a particular event. For example, Itsukushima et al. (2002) conducted a field experiment in which they used details of a real crime case. They found that in addition to participants (i.e., eyewitnesses) not being able to recognize the target person (i.e., the suspect) from a picture, they were unable to adequately recall the details of the “crime.” Similar to Itsukushima et al.’s (2002) participants, the majority of the “witnesses” recruited for eyewitness memory research are largely undergraduate students who participate within environments that do not bear any similarities to actual crime settings (Penrod et al., 1995).
It is important to acknowledge human memory’s imperfections. Memory, specifically eyewitness memory, can be distorted by something as simple as the choice of words used in a question. And false memories can have lasting consequences.
If you enjoyed this blog post, check out our other blog posts!
References
American Psychological Association [APA]. (n.d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology: eyewitness memory. American
Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/eyewitness-memory.
Dagnall, N., & Drinkwater, K. (2019, July 19). The 'Mandela effect' and the science of false memories. The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/the-mandela-effect-and-the-science-of-false-memories-114226
Forgas, J. P., Laham, S. M., & Vargas, P. T. (2005). Mood effects on eyewitness memory: Affective influences on
susceptibility to misinformation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(6), 574-588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.11.005
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for
an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 533-543.
Itsukushima, Y., Nomura, K., & Usui, N. (2002). Reliability of eyewitness testimony: A field experimental approach for a
real crime. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 4(1), 41-52.
https://doi.org/10.1177/146135570200400105
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of auto-mobile destruction: An example of the interaction between
language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal behavior, 13, 585-589.
Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004).
Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International
Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(3), 265-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.03.004
Penrod, S. D., Fulero, S. M., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and
after daubert: The state of the law and the science. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 13(2), 229-259.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370130206
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 13(3), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617734878
Disclaimer
The blog posts are for informational and educational purposes only. The posts should not be considered as any type of advice (medical, mental health, legal, and/or religious advice). All blog posts have been researched, written, and edited by the undergraduate students and alumni of the Lifespan Cognition Lab. As a teaching and research-based lab, we encourage all lab members to help make knowledge more accessible to all communities through these posts.
