Improving the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimonies Flashcards
A theory explaining inaccuracy in EWT
Reconstructive Memory Theory
Reconstructive Memory Theory
Bartlett (1932). Memories are not accurate ‘snapshots’ of events perfectly preserved but reconstructions of events. Reconstructions are influenced by stereotypes and attitudes we have. Schemas are used as mental shortcuts. When we recall it is influenced by schemas, memories change to fit pre-existing bias. This may produce errors (confabulations).
Research Supporting Reconstructive Memory Theory
French and Richards (1993). Participants shown image of traditional roman numeral clock but 4 was IIII not IV, so in surprise memory test 9 people put IV and 5 IIII. Because pre-existing schemas of roman numerals recreate the memory of the clock.
How to improve EWT
Fischer (1987). Looked at the techniques used by Florida police and identified several factors of the standard interview that needed to be improved. They gave them a lot of quick, direct, and closed questions in a short time, the order of the questions did not match the witnesses mental representation, and they were not able to talk freely and were interrupted often.
Two ways of improving EWT
Cognitive Interview and Enhanced Cognitive Interview
Cognitive Interview
Fischer and Geiselman (1985). They suggested 4 features that need to be done in an interview to improve accuracy: Report everything - include every detail even if seems irrelevant as may trigger important memories, Reinstate the context - go back to crime scene in mind which helps to prevent context-dependent forgetting, Reverse the order - recall events in a different sequence to prevent schemas interrupting and to see if being honest, Change perspective - recall from another’s perspective to disrupt schemas.
Enhanced Cognitive Interview
Fischer et al (1987). Developed additional elements more focused on building rapport and making them feel comfortable. Don’t distract witness, use eye contact appropriately, witness controls the flow of information, asked open questions, reminded ‘don’t know’ is an appropriate answer, encourage them to relax and breaths slowly. Reduces anxiety so hopefully better recall and more understandable than just a mess.
Weakness (P)
CI takes more time and training.
More time to establish rapport, and needs specialist training which many don’t have resources to provide for more than a few hours.
Not realistic so better to focus efforts elsewhere in making more accurate.
However… very important in conviction of criminals so cots benefit analysis may find benefits more than costs.
Strength
Evidence it works.
Kohnken et al (1999) did a meta analysis and found CI produced 41% more accurate information then SI.
CI effective in recalling accurate information.
However… also increase in accurate information so overall accuracy rate was 85% for CI and 82% for SI so as it is more impractical may be better to use SI.
Weakness (E)
Not all elements equally effective.
Milne and Bull (2002) found 4 techniques used alone produce more information than SI but combination of report everything and reinstate context produced better than them all combined.
May be that don’t need to use all to produce accurate.
Furthermore… developed pic and mix approach that is best for situation and person and what they have time for. Not all aspects of CI are needed for accuracy.