Eye witness Memory

 

            An eyewitness is often an umbrella term that refers to a person who has seen an incident or an event enough to provide a detailed account. Therefore, one can be an eyewitness to a car accident or even an extraordinary event. One can also be an eyewitness to a crime, making them a valuable part of the law enforcement system. Eyewitness testimony can be the last nail needed to seal a suspected criminal's fate and provide sentencing. When coming from a reliable source, an eyewitness account can place the suspect on the crime scene and the suspect's role. Clifford & Scott (1978) argued: “that crimes range along a continuum of emotionality or arousal and that the recall abilities of witnesses to such different incidents may closely parallel that continuum” (p. 352).

       Therefore, this research review will delve into eyewitness memory, testimony psychology, aspects affecting memory, factors that can lead to the discrediting of an eyewitness, and improve eyewitness memory, false memories, and memory biases, among other related issues. Primarily, eyewitness memory is the episodic memory of a dramatic event or a crime that they have witnessed first-hand. Eyewitness testimony is a crucial element in the judicial system. Additionally, eyewitness memory includes their recollection of an individual or individuals’ faces, which could be the crime perpetrators. For example, in an investigation on rape, eyewitness memory includes a recollection of the face of their rapists. However, the accuracy of eyewitness memory is vulnerable to many factors and thus may be questionable sometimes. Eyewitness memory will be discussed in detail at a later point in this review. That is a crucial part of the discussion since it could and has led to wrongful convictions.

Factor Influencing Eyewitness Testimony

       Eyewitness testimony is a legally recognized term, and it describes the accounts given by an eyewitness, mainly regarding an event or incident that took place. Clifford & Scott writes that how factors that influence an eyewitness interact is still a challenge despite the elements' fair comprehension. For instance, Kuehn's (1974 as cited by Clifford & Scott, 1978) surveyed 100 cases found that the type of crime was significant to an eyewitness. The author saw that witness testimony for robberies was fuller than those of crimes like rape and assault. Clifford & Scott asserted that Kuehn's findings “be hypothesized that completeness of report decreased as a function of the increasing emotionality of the crime.” (p. 352). These testimonies are significant since they include descriptions of perpetrators and other specific details of the crime, leading to a conviction.

Psychological Factors

According to Clifford & Scott's research findings, eyewitness testimony about emotionally laden events should be treated more cautiously than the less emotional ones. It can be deduced that various psychological factors such as stress, anxiety, leading questions, reconstructive memory, and even weapon focus. Deffenbacher and colleagues note that various studies have been carried out to determine the effect of heightened anxiety and stress on eyewitness faithfulness to their duty. For instance, Clifford and Scott's experiment compared the effects of anxiety and stress on people who watched a violent film. The study used a four-way split-plot and involved six males and six females investigating the nature of the incident witnessed. Their research revealed that accuracy was lower under violent conditions.

Moreover, females, perhaps due to their emotional disposition, performed lower than males. Deffenbacher et al. (2004), in their meta-analyses of 27 independent tests, provides support for Clifford and Scott's evidence. They saw that high levels of stress affected eyewitness memory negatively. According to a 1908 article by Yerkes & Dodson, the Dodson Curve notes a direct relationship between memories, psychological distress, and anxiety until achieving an optimal point.

Live Vs. Laboratory Staged Incident

Common sense dictates that the closer to a crime incident, the more details a witness would recall. A study by Yuille & Cutshall (1986) in a case study analyzed thirteen eyewitness accounts of a shooting incident provided by police and from other research interviews four to five months later. At the time, their stress levels from the event had subsided and were thought to have no adverse effects. It was found that the witnesses were still accurate in their accounts, although some details were such as height, age, and weight estimations were off. These results differed from those of witnesses of a laboratory experiment version of the same event.

Reconstructive Memory

       Reconstructive memory is also an essential factor that may influence eyewitness testimony. According to Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory (Bartlett, 1932), it is essential to understand that recalling is subject to eyewitness events' interpretation. That would mean an eyewitness testimony vulnerable to cultural norms, values, and individual perceptions of the world. Many people think that memory is like a videotape and that it records and stores information precisely as it happens. Remembering is like playing back what was recorded. However, this is never the case since there is a lot of encoding and decoding involved with the information. The brain extracts the gist and any underlying meaning from the information presented. Bartlett saw that the brain stores information in a way that makes the most sense to them. Therefore, people often utilize schemas when receiving, interpreting, and storing information.

       Schemas are a way of organizing information. They can be described as mental ‘units’ of knowledge in correspondence with objects, situations, or people frequently encountered. This way, Bartlett could explain why the brain may not be able to process some situations immediately if they have never happened before and could quickly go into shock. From his work, it can be deduced that schemas create room for people to make sense of their encounters to predict what will happen. Furthermore, it is a defence mechanism since it helps people know how to react to certain situations if they find themselves involved in similar incidences. Bartlett'sWar of the Ghosts’ experiment where participants listened to a story and had to tell it to other people who had to tell it to other people and so on revealed that memory is not a factual recording but that people often try to make sense. Consequently, they change their memories. This same case applied to eyewitness memory, where the witness recalls it in the way that makes the most sense to them. Therefore, schemas serve as basic toolkits that determine an individual’s ability to recall information. On the other extreme, one cannot overlook potential aspects that position these mental units at risk of dysfunction. 

Weapon Focus

       The “weapon focus” phenomenon, as referred to by psychologists and lawyers (Loftus & Messo, 1987), also has a significant influence over eyewitness testimony. The idea is that it’s easier for an eyewitness to recall the presence of a weapon at the scene. Loftus and colleagues saw that crimes involving weapons were more prone to have more eyewitnesses than the opposite. Moreover, the authors opine that weapon focus could also act to the disadvantage of eyewitness testimony since many eyewitnesses recall more details about the weapon involved than the perpetrator's details. An eyewitness may remember that the victim was shot six times on the chest, even months after the crime happened, but they may not recall details about the shooter. Loftus & Messo experimented with this hypothesis. In one setting, the customer in a restaurant was holding a gun, while in a different setting, the customer had a chequebook. They found that subjects viewing the simulated robbery spent more time fixated on the weapon than those in control involving the cheque. The second experiment discovered that witnesses' memory in the weapon scenario was lower than in the control condition. The researchers concluded that the tendency to fixate on weapons reflected the trend to pay attention to an unusual object.

Inaccurate Eyewitness Account

       According to Yuille and Cutshall, the criminal justice system values eyewitness testimony. A related account can receive discrediting. Logically, the first pointer of an inaccurate eyewitness account is the presence of inconsistencies. These could include giving the same story differently, and it could range from overlooking minor details that may later prove to be critical to the case to change the whole story entirely. For example, some leading questions such as “did the perpetrator flee the crime scene via a getaway car or by foot? Did they point a knife or a gun at the victim? How many times was the victim shot or stabbed? What time of the day did this happen? How far away from the crime scene were you?” among others can be used to gauge the accuracy of an eyewitness.

Cross-race Effect

       As Clifford & Scott concurred various factors can directly influence an eyewitness account. In their review of existing literature, Brigham and colleagues explored aspects such as the victim's race versus the aggressor's race in both children and adults. The idea of the cross-race effect discussed refers to recognizing one’s race is more straightforward than the faces of another alien race. Inferring from that concept, it is easier for an eyewitness to give as many details as possible while referring to individuals of their race. As such, it could be thought that an eyewitness may deem irrelevant some features, thus distorting the information conveyed when referring to a perpetrator from an alien race.

       Moreover, in their chapter, Brigham et al. (2007) discuss likely conditions under which “own-race bias” or “other-race effect” may occur. Additionally, they offer actionable recommendations for collecting eyewitness evidence in incidences involving different races or ethnic backgrounds.  The authors suggest approaches such as using a lineup with several people instead of a show-up with only one person present in improving the accuracy of the identification process. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid repetition with the same suspect and the same witness. A double-blind lineup is also recommended where the administrator and the witness do not know who the suspect is. They are useful in preventing the administrator from influencing the eyewitness’s decision. Brigham and colleagues also cite debates challenging the effectiveness of photo lineups as opposed to living lineups. Testing the hypothesis of whether there is a better performance in one over the other is a subject to future research studies.

Misinformation Effect

       The misinformation effect also plays a vital role in eyewitness testimony since it directly affects eyewitness memory. Laney & Loftus (2021) describe the phenomenon as a situation where post-event information interferes with the actual event's memory. They opine that false memory also plays a role in this, and it can lead an eyewitness to misidentify an innocent person as the perpetrator. They can result from internal cognitive processes or misleading external information. False memories are dangerous since they may provide the wrong leads to the investigating officers. Despite the shortage of research on eyewitness memory, current studies have taken it upon themselves towards expounding on the same (Laney. & Loftus, 2021). The criminal justice system has also continued to work in tandem with cognitive psychology experts, alongside related fields, to determine the degree of credibility in eyewitness memory. Altogether, attempts to streamline criminal justice demands integrating varied psychological disciplines towards minimizing the chances of an erroneous judgment. 

Conclusion

            Ultimately, eyewitness memory is a crucial part of a criminal investigation. However, the discussion in this review proves that it is not always accurate. This statement is backed by evidence from multiple wrongful convictions that were solely based on eyewitness accounts. The wrongfully convicted suspects were exonerated based on DNA evidence revealed that they could not have been the criminals. It is recommended that as many eyewitnesses as possible be interviewed to help piece together the crime events. This means that even the accounts of accidental witnesses should be considered since they could give crucial details that the star eyewitness may have missed. Supporting witnesses demands sufficient consideration since they can be used to corroborate the account of the star eyewitness. The alibis accounts should also be investigated in this case since they may be used to discredit or confirm the eyewitness statement. In retrospect, based on all the factors that can affect eyewitness memory, including trauma that may lead to a block in their memory, it is best not to solely rely on eyewitness memory as the basis of a conviction unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 References

Bartlett, F.C., Burt, C. (1933). “Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.” British Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(2), 187-192. Doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279. 1933.tb02913. x.

Brigham, J. C., Bennett, L. B., Meissner, C. A., & Mitchell, T. L. (2007). “The influence of race on eyewitness memory.” In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2. Memory for people (p. 257–281). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Clifford, B.R. and Scott, J. (1978). “Individual and situational factors in eyewitness memory.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 352-359. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.63.3.352

Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). “A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory.” Law and human behaviour, 28(6), 687-706. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x

Loftus, E.F., Loftus, G.R., & Messo, J. (1987). “Some facts about weapon focus.” Law and Human behaviour, 11, 55-62. DOI: 10.2307/1393529

Yerkes R.M., Dodson JD (1908). “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation.” Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18: 459–482. DOI: 10.1002/cne.920180503.

Yuille, J.C., & Cutshall, J.L. (1986). “A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291-301. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.291.