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.