L14 Eyewitness

Question 1

Describe Physical evidence

Answer 1

 Protocols for collecting, preserving and interpreting physical evidence are dictated largely by forensic scientists.
 Protocols have a scientific foundation, grounded in what experts suggest are optimal ways to avoid contamination.
Physical evidence is often ‘circumstantial’ (you were at the scene, your DNA was there) Link to scene doesn’t mean link to crime.
 Protocols for collecting, preserving and interpreting physical evidence are dictated largely by forensic scientists.

Question 2

 Eyewitness Evidence

Answer 2

 Typically collected by non-specialists in human memory.
 Protocols for collecting, preserving and interpreting eyewitness evidence has not incorporated scientific psychological research to the extent that it could.
 Often directly links suspect to crime.

Question 3

Why might the difference exist between physical and eyewitness evidence?

Answer 3

 Memory misconceptions: Survey of 169 individuals showed that 84% agreed with the statement “everything we earn is permanently stored in the mind. But some details are not accessible, only through hypnoses or other special techniques, these could be recovered.”

 Metaphors of memory as like a video-recorder
 BUT psychologists know that memory is fallible, reconstructive (we reconstruct events), and susceptible to suggestion.

 Eyewitness testimony is amongst the least reliable forms of evidence.

Question 4

How do we know eyewitness evidence is so unreliable?

Answer 4

1. DNA exoneration case studies
   “Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions [in the US], playing a role in nearly 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.” (anecdotal rather than experimental finding)

2. Eyewitness research 
Over 2000 publications to date show that errors can occur at: 
	Encoding
	Storage 
	Retrieval

Ebbinhhaus Forgetting Curve (conducted hundreds of years ago)
He learnt nonsense words, his memory faded quickly and then slowed down over time.

Question 5

 Define the misinformation effect

Answer 5

The Misinformation Effect
Exposure to incorrect information about an event after it has occurred often causes people to incorporate this misinformation into their memories (Loftus et al., 1978)

Question 6

Three ways to encounter post-event information:

Answer 6

1. Leading questions about the event (police, therapists)
2. Hearing about the event from the media (read about your crime in the news)
3. Hearing about the event from other witnesses (direct conversation or a third party like a police officer)

Question 7

Co-witness information is defined as

Answer 7

information that one eyewitness conveys to another eyewitness about an incident they both observed.
Previous findings on the effects of misleading information cannot be generalized to co-witness information for several reasons:
• The questioner or the media source is seen as credible.
• Participants in eyewitness studies are motivated to pay close attention to the information presented in the questions in order to respond to the questions. (Betz, Skowronski & Ostrom, 1996)

Question 8

 Describe research on the different ways that a witness might encounter misinformation
6 examples

Answer 8

1. Leading Questions: Example
   • McMartin Preschool “reported helicopters took kids to isolated farms” “kids said underground tunnels were made” they just played in tunnels
2. Leading Questions: Research (Loftus & Palmer, 1974)
   • Ppts shown a film of a traffic accident
   • Ppts asked “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other” gave higher speed estimates than those asked, “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
   • A week later, Ppts in the smashed condition were more than twice as likely to recall broken glass when in fact there was none
   Speed went up with the words: Contacted, hit, bumped, collided, smashed
3. Media Report: Example
   Washington Sniper (media interview, someone reported a white van at the scene. Look around for white vans after. In fact it was a blue car.)
   • White Van
   • Blue Car
4. Media Report: Research (Wright & Stroud, 1998)
   Showed Participats pictures of a shoplifting incident.
   • Ppts then read a brief summary of the crime, which included some incorrect details.
   Ppts incorporated the incorrect details from the summary into their memories.
5. Co-witness Information: Examples
   • Co-witnesses: Two or more people who witness the same event
   • Peter Kain, writing phd, not robbing bank, Anna Lindh (look out for army style jacket, CCTV nike jumper)
6. Co-Witness Discussion
   Eyewitness Survey Helen’s Phd
   (Paterson & Kemp, 2006a)
    86% of witnesses report discussing the event with a co-witness
    The most frequent reason: “providing information” (talking about details)
    More witnesses reported that they had been encouraged by the police to discuss the event with co-witnesses than discouraged

Question 9

The Legal Perspective on co-witness discussion

Answer 9

• Hearsay: “a witness’s assertions of relevant facts should be based upon his or her own experiences” and not those of another (Forbes, 2003, p. 59).
• American, British, (and Australian?) guidelines discourage discussion between witnesses

Question 10

police survey about preventing co-witness discussion

Answer 10

Police Survey (Paterson & Kemp, 2005)
• 74% of police reported receiving instructions to prevent discussion
• Police reported benefits of discussion
• Refresh and reinforce memory
• Recovery from trauma
• Witnesses with different stories impeded court
• Police officers discuss with one another
• Police reported impracticalities of preventing it
• Discussion prior to arrival
• Impossible to prevent
• Mother and child (unethical to separate a child from mother after the event and say don’t talk about it)

Question 11

Co-Witness Discussion experiment paterson, kemp and mcintyre, 2011

Answer 11

• Participants watch a video
• Do not know there are two slightly different versions (A and B)
• Participants discuss what they remember with their co-witness
• One week later they individually recall what they saw

• Research has consistently shown that participants report misinformation that was previously stated by a co-witness during discussion
They also got an identification parade or line up. Both perpetrators were presented but there was no effect of co-witness discussion on identification performance.
• This phenomenon has become known as:
o “Social contagion of memory” (Roediger et al., 2001)
o “Memory conformity” (Wright, Self, & Justice, 2000)

Question 12

what happens if you warn the participant that they saw different info than co-witnesses?

Answer 12

Warning
(One level of warning was, just report what you remember) (Level 2 was you watched different videos)
Warnings are not effective (Paterson, Kemp, & McIntyre, 2011)
There was no association between what condition they were in and what they believed they were in. All thought they had seen different videos

Question 13

Comparing Ways to Encounter Misinformation (Paterson & Kemp, 2006b)

Answer 13

• Study investigated the impact of different methods of encountering post-event information:
 Leading questions (authority) condition 4 items, incorrect or correct
 Media report (authority) condition, incorrect and correct 4 items each
 Indirect co-witness information (do you agree or disagree these 8 statements that someone else said, 4 correct info and 4 incorrect)
 Co-witness discussion with confederate (direct information from another witness, 4 items correct and incorrect.
 Control
• No effect of post-event information method on memory accuracy for control items (all things they report that were not related to the incorrect and correct info they got. That’s good to find. Means memory ability is intact.
• For accurate information, direct and indirect co-witness conditions more accurate
• For misleading information direct and indirect co-witness conditions less accurate

Question 14

Main theories explaining the misinformation effect:

Answer 14

1. Social and demand factors (McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985) (maybe they think they have to, but even when told its free recall, they still find the misinformation effect, so maybe its modification of memory)
2. Modification of the memory
   a) Alteration theories
   b) Coexistence theories
   The different theories for the misinformation effect have different practical implications

Question 15

Alteration hypothesis: Original information does not exist because:

Answer 15

Vacant slot explanation (Wright, 1995)
 Misinformation is accepted because individual failed to encode original information
ii. Overwriting explanation (e.g., Loftus, 1979)
 Postevent information overwrites the original memory
iii. Blend explanation (e.g., Loftus, 1985)
 Ps encode misinformation in same cognitive structure as the original information which results in a blend (e.g., colours, numbers).
Even with warnings they still report misinformation. Even when you pay people to report correctly, they still report misinformation.

Question 16

Co-existence hypothesis

Answer 16

Both memory for original event and misinformation are stored and each memory is capable of being recovered. Original memory is not replaced, but is less accessible than the subsequent misleading information, perhaps owing to:
 Recency effect (Murdock, 1962)
 Retroactive interference (McGeoch, 1932) when we learn something new, we forget old knowledge.

Question 17

Factors influencing susceptibility to the misinformation effect: People will be more susceptible to misinfo if…

Answer 17

 Age (young and old). Sex and gender and IQ don’t have an effect.
 Hypnosis (we are more suggestable and if we say we recall something under hypnosis, it’s not permissible in court)
 Suggestibility (Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale) (individual differences in suggestibility)
 Misinformation is repeated (more likely to take info on if we hear it lots)
 Misinformation is peripheral (not central to the event)
Age regressed Ppts appear credible, but research does not show that their recollections are accurate (Orne, 1979)
Children are more susceptible than adults (e.g., Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987)

Question 18

People will be less susceptible to misinformation if:

Answer 18

 The misinformation blatantly contradicts what was originally witnessed (Loftus, 1979) (saw a man, not a woman)
 Source of the misinformation in not credible
 They are forewarned that they may encounter misinformation (Greene, Flynn, & Loftus, 1982). However, warning them that they have encountered information a week after the fact, doesn’t help combat the misinformation effect (Paterson, Kemp, & McIntyre, 2011)
 They first make a public statement about what they witnessed (Loftus, 1977)
 There is less time between witnessing the event and the presentation of misinformation (Loftus et al., 1978). We are more suggestible the longer it is after the event.

Question 19

Limitations of research on the misinformation effect

Answer 19

 Ethical constraints of laboratory research
 Ecological validity of lab findings
 Yuille & Cutshall (1986) investigated real homicide with 20 witnesses (13 interviewed)
 Reports were accurate and detailed 5-6 months after
 Witnesses were not susceptible to misinformation

Question 20

What can be done?

Answer 20

Statements should be obtained as soon as is practicable following an incident. Before memory fades and before you can encounter misinformation. , the early recall must be of high quality

An immediate-recall tool that elicits a comprehensive statement from eyewitnesses may increase the quality and quantity of accurate information that they provide.

Question 21

-SAI: Self-Administered Interview –

Answer 21

Paper and pencil Self-explanatory response booklet for witnesses to record their memories at the crime scene. Completing the SAI soon after the crime
- Minimises memory decay
- Maintains accuracy
- Protects against memory contamination from PEI sources
Until the police can formerly interview them.

When interviewed, they provide more detailed, accurate statements and don’t take into account as much misinformation.
. It also includes specific instructions for detailed person descriptions and sketch instructions to represent spatial layout (Gabbert et al., 2009a).
• BUT…The paper format = generic and inflexible.
- only appropriate for one-off events, and not incidents that are repeated or ongoing.
• The tool does not accommodate the needs of different types of witnesses (e.g., lower literacy).

Question 22

Advantages of iWitnessed:

Answer 22

• Uses a guided recall procedure designed to maximise the information recorded.
• Can be used for any type of event, including both one-off and recurring events.
• Records both written and oral accounts, with the latter shown to be more user-friendly
• You can add images such as photographs or screenshots (e.g. bully messages)
• Each entry is ‘stamped’ with the date, time, and GPS location.
• You can protect your entries with a PIN code.
• The information is stored on your device. You can email it.
• Provides direct links to support services and information about the psychological effects of trauma.