Eyewitness Testimony - N/A PDF

Preview

Summary

N/A...

Description

Running head: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

Eyewitness Testimony XXXXXX Grand Canyon University: PSY 102 20 October 2019

1

2

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY Our brains are malleable and everchanging, subject to outside factors. The same could be said for our memories. Studies have shown that people can remember fake memories after being exposed to misleading suggestions (Wright, Loftus, & Hall, 2001). This discovery lead to many other studies testing the true ability of human memory. This is important because our memories most often determine our outlook on life and guidance on what we believe to be true. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the findings and research behind the reliability of eyewitness testimonies.

Article 1 Researchers Gerrie, Belcher, and Garry (2006) wondered if people remember false memories when there are no misleading suggestions. They conducted two experiments to test this theory. In the first one, subjects watched a movie showing chronological scenes (e.g. a woman making a PBJ sandwich in correct and specific steps), but some critical actions were missing (Gerrie, Belcher, & Garry, 2006). They discovered that the subjects confidently but incorrectly remembered 17% of information that was not presented because they created false memories for missing actions (Gerrie et al., 2006). In the second experiment, subjects watched the same movie two times, but the missing actions were presented as either crucial or not crucial (Gerrie et al., 2006). One version removed crucial steps, and another version removed noncrucial steps (e.g. not using jelly on a sandwich, using a spoon instead of a knife). In this experiment, researchers discovered that subjects were more likely to falsely remember the missing noncrucial than missing crucial information (Gerrie et al., 2006). In the end, the results suggested that people can predict what aspects of an event are likely to be falsely remembered (Gerrie et al.,

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

3

2006). Moreover, this study revealed that when information is omitted, people tend to form false memories surrounding the event due to subliminal expectations or predictions.

Article 2 In a study inspired by postevent information research, Wright, Loftus, and Hall (2001) set out to find if new information learned about an incident after it has happened can hinder a witness from accessing their memory of the scene. The focus of the study was to explore the possibility of making memories less accessible (Wright, Loftus, & Hall, 2001). In the first experiment, participants were shown an event then asked to generate a story based on what they saw. In the second experiment, participants were shown another event, asked to imagine how the event played out, then tested on their memory of the event. From both experiments, results revealed that it is both possible to make memories less accessible through omitting details and the effect of this is like that of suggesting details. Moreover, researchers reached the concluded that leaving out detail of an incident can impair memory of the incident (Wright et al., 2001).

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony Both research articles establish that memories can be misled by suggestibility or the passage of time; in addition to this, their results indicate that eyewitness testimonies are not reliable. The results from article one implicate that false memories can come from our expectations and unconscious predictions (Gerrie et al., 2006). This relates to implicit memories: memories that are not formed consciously (Grison, & Gazzaniga, 2016). Implicit memories are often acquired through past experiences and used to remember things quickly. As in the case of article one procedural memory, a type of implicit memory, is related to the cause of the study.

4

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY Procedural memories are unconscious memories involving motor skills, habits, and behaviors (Grison, & Gazzaniga, 2016). The results from article two conclude that memories become less accessible when details of an event are omitted (Wright et al., 2001. This ties into the concept of classical conditioning. According to Grison and Gazzaniga (2016), classical conditioning employs an association between subjects. In the case of article two, missing information forced the participants to fill in the blank spaces with their assumptions of what might have happened.

Conclusion Ultimately, both studies conclude that human memory is unreliable, and aspects of an event are likely to be falsely remembered. Our memories are subject to distortion such as our previous experiences, bias, and suggestibility which can result in false memories (Grison, & Gazzaniga, 2016). The research and discoveries regarding memory are very important when considering eyewitness testimony and its role in today’s justice system. By considering what is known about memory, the error in human memory can be addressed and ultimately, many of the convicted will be given fairer chances.

5

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY References Gerrie, M. P., Belcher, L. E., & Garry, M. (2006). “Mind the gap”: False memories for missing aspects of an event. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), pp. 689–696. Grison, S., & Gazzaniga, M. (2016). Psychology in your life (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton Publishing. Wright, D. B., Loftus, E. F., & Hall, M. (2001). Now you see it; now you don’t: Inhibiting recall and recognition of scenes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(5), pp. 471–482....