Psychology

Question 1

Introduction to psychological context

Answer 1

The testimony of observational witnesses provides for a main form of evidence used in fact-finding. There are two broad psychological processes relevant to witnessing. That is those involved in observing, remembering and recalling relevant facts, alongside those involving the evaluating of the reliance and credibility of witnesses. Therefore, witnesses must first observe the facts and then the triers of fact observe the witnesses. Therefore, what is needed is a critical interrogation into the legal systems faith in humans to deliver the truth through personally observing facts and then accurately assessing witnesses.

Question 2

Memory stores

Answer 2

Sensory
Short term
Long term

Question 3

Long term memory

Answer 3

Long term memory stores both personally observed individual facts (autobiographical memory) and general knowledge of the world (theoretical memory).

While the information on witnesses report always involves autobiographical memories they interact with theoretical memory in crucial ways.

Question 4

What are schemas

Answer 4

Theoretical knowledge and its commonalities form schemata. These are knowledge or cognitive structures which represent generalised, organised, stereotypical knowledge derived from first or second hand experiences of situations, persons, events etc.

Particularly important to legal fact handling are schemas relating to events which manifest as story schemata or scripts. Research shows people have common scripts for previously experienced events (such as eating in restaurants erc) and for events such as robberies, muggings that they have learned from film, tv, books etc.

Question 5

Heuristics

Answer 5

An inferential (or judgmental) heuristic is a general strategy that we use for drawing inferences. It is a rough-and-ready device, a cognitive shortcut. This can cause people to add details and inference that were not there

Question 6

Perception categories

Answer 6

Observation
Nature of fact observed
Witness related factors

Question 7

What is perception

Answer 7

Perception of events and what information is stored / how it is encoded will be affected by several factors

Question 8

Perception categories

Answer 8

Observation
Nature of fact observed
Witness related factors

Question 9

Observation factors

Answer 9

Distance from facts
weather conditions
lighting
view obstructions
time
distractions

Question 10

Nature of facts observed

Answer 10

People overstimate duration of events
People estimate age, height and weight taxing

Question 11

Nature of facts observed

Answer 11

People overestimate duration of events
People overestimate height of short people and underestimate the height of tall people
Non-violent events are perceived more accurately than violent events

Question 12

Witness related factors (non-subtle)

Answer 12

physical or mental illness
alcohol drug intoxication
fatigue
injury

Question 13

Witness related factors (subtle)

Answer 13

Psychological and emotional conditions (anxiety and neuroticism reduce accuracy)

Stress by witnessing events such as violence (stress up to a point improves perception but beyond that point has a negative effect)

Weapon focus - witnesses concentrate on a weapon and cannot accurately remember other details

Question 14

Prior expectations

Answer 14

Cultural expectations
Personal prejudices
Past experience
Temporary expectations / biases

Question 15

Cultural expectations

Answer 15

The influence of beliefs held by a large number of people within a given culture. Impact how you perceive things due to a prior expectation of how the events should unfold

Question 16

Personal prejudices

Answer 16

Closely related to stereotypes but much less widely held, may be confined to a single person

Question 17

Past experience

Answer 17

Because of the way things have been in the past we expect them to be the same in the present. People both change and ignore unexpected information. Witnesses might report non-existent facts which are usually part of the relevant scenario

Question 18

Temporary expectations or biases

Answer 18

Based on what you expected toy were going to see.

Prior perceptions about how the world works leads to information being omitted modified or invented

Question 19

Perception analysis

Answer 19

Perception itself is probably the largest hinderance to fact-finding in regards to the truth. This is because there seems to be very little that can be done about improving or altering the perception of others. , from reviewing how facts are initially perceived, it can be seen that the impact of prior perceptions or schemas about how the world works leads to information being omitted, modified or even invented. This shows there is no such thing as pure perception and finding truth in fact-finding relies upon the perception or others, causing hindrance. With memory, recall and evaluation of witnesses, it seems there is reform or processes which can be put in place to try and negate some of the hindrances they may cause. However, with perception it seems this is limited as it is based on subjective experiences, expectations and prejudices.

Question 20

Memory issues

Answer 20

Time
Witnesses’ own cognitive processes
Memory contamination

Question 21

Memory - time

Answer 21

Memory fades over time. Thus delays between perception and recall affect the accuracy and detail of the memory. Memory loss increases when information is inconsistent and irrelevant.

Question 22

Witnesses own cognitive processess

Answer 22

May lead to memory being altered. Witnesses interests and motivations. For example witnesses who lie about or pretend not to remember facts over time come to remember them less accurately.

Witnesses who guess about answers which they are uncertain may become increasingly more certain about them over time.

Commitment effect – stems from a reluctance to retract publicly expressed views especially if worried about wasting others or courts time. Causes witness reports to remain stable over retelling even though original memory was precarious or mistaken.

Schemas play a central role, in cases where memory starts to fade, features of the observed facts may be altered by or replaced with details taken from existing schemas. More likely to occur with weak memory traces.

Question 23

Memory contamination

Answer 23

Post-perception information can potentially contaminate memory.

One is through exposure to media reports or conversations with other witnesses. Example is 44% subjects asked about death of Princess Diana reported seeing a non-existent film of the car crash that they had heard or read about.

Leading or suggestive questioning can contaminate. It can be subtle, for example 16% as opposed to 7% reported seeing non-existent broken glass when the verb ‘smashed’ was used rather than ‘hit’ when asked about the speed of cars in an accident.

Being shown props, photographs, diagrams or drawings might contaminate. New conflicting information might not totally replace but lead to witnesses to remember some compromise between the two. Witnesses tend to be more resistant to misleading information when the memories are fresh

Question 24

Memory analysis

Answer 24

Particularly, due to memory decay, memories can be forgotten and, as the process can take months and sometimes years, this is significant factor. Furthermore, due to the role of the internet and social media, it seems increasingly more likely that memory contamination will occur. Particularly in cases obtaining a lot of media coverage, it may be difficult for witnesses to avoid reports about the particular case they are involved in. This increase in media coverage and social media also has implications for witnesses own cognitive processes due to the commitment effect. If this stems from a reluctance to retract publicly expressed views, it seems it can be presumed that this would be exacerbates the more publicity the case gained. However, there are reforms which can help memory decay alteration etc.

As Lloyd said, ‘Our memories may serve us extremely well for the most party, but human memory was not designed for the legal system.’ The superiority of early recall suggests that witnesses should testify as soon as possible after events. However, this is an issue due process. Thus, there are alternative avenues to explore. For example, recording witnesses’ first recall of events will provide more accurate evidence than testimony in formal proceedings due to memory decay and alteration. Transcripts should form part of the record and even take precedence over court testimony.

Question 25

Recall methods

Answer 25

1. Recognitions – can vary from total certainty to a vague feeling of familiarity, involves witnesses re-encountering the original stimulus and regarding it as familiar (e.g. seeing or hearing the person they are trying to remember)
2. Cued recall – occurs when a memory is recalled because something is linked to it. Might be spontaneous such as sound that suddenly invokes a memory or questions. Depends on whether the cues are part of the original encoding
3. Free recall – involves witnesses responding to open-ended questions like ‘tell me everything you saw that day’

In relation to fact-finding, recall through questioning is most commone

Question 26

Factors affecting recall

Answer 26

Question style
Question wording
Repeated questioning
Retrieval environment

Question 27

Question style impacting recall

Answer 27

More accurate but less detailed answers result from open questions. Particularly effective are free narrative directions. More complete but less accurate responses from closed questions. Interviewers recommended to funnel questioning starting with open before moving to closed, probing for detail and clarification.

Question 28

Question wording importance recall

Answer 28

for example, how tall vs how short increases height estimates. Holding interviews as soon as possible improves accuracy and completeness of recall, though makes more likely inconsistencies between accounts at interview and later testimony.

Question 29

Repeated questioning recall

Answer 29

May increase the overall amount of information recalled but also increases chances of post-event memory alteration.

Question 30

Retrieval environment

Answer 30

Studies establish that recall of information is more accurate when conducted in the same place it was acquired.

Question 31

Recall analysis

Answer 31

Clear that questioning style used in formal proceedings – leading questions, aggressive crosse-examination, breaches of conversational rules etc seem almost deliberately designed to undermine effective recall.

It seems, perhaps, recall is not the issue within itself, for example individuals are likely to have accurate recall when the question style is open, albeit less detailed. But the issue here is the processes in which the recall is meant to be extrapolated. The question style, question wording , repetitiveness and retrieval environment are all seen to effect recall but these can be lessened. Interviews could be regulated to prohibit leading questions and other cross-examination techniques designed to confuse witnesses, affecting their recall. This could be the same for leading questions being prohibited in court on the grounds that their potential for contaminating accurate memory outweighs their value in challenging inaccurate memory. Training could be provided for the cognitive interview protocol or similar techniques adopted. Therefore, although recall is an issue there are things that can be put in place to try and improve this area to ensure accurate recall is provided.

Questioning techniques – cognitive interview encourages interviewees to focus their mind on the environment of the original perception, such as location of object, physical conditions and their feelings. Interviewers advised not to interrupt, jump between topics, asked closed and leading questions

Question 32

How to assess witnesses

Answer 32

1. What is said – internal and external consistency, coherence, detail
2. How it is said – confidence, tone of voice, body language
3. By whom – perceived authority, status, believability (credibility)

Question 33

Witness reliability

Answer 33

Witness reliability is about whether the truth the witness is telling is what actually happened. Central route processing involves considering the testimony’s content, its coherence and consistency with other evidence and relevant factors affecting reliability. Peripheral or heuristic route processing is based on non-content based cues such as status, attractiveness etc. Triers of fact assessing witness reliability mostly use peripheral route processes.

Influential when discussing witness reliability is their speech-style. Witnesses are more likely to be believed if they speak in a narrative rather than fragmented style, and adopt powerful as opposed to powerless speech. ‘I think’ ‘sort of’ and ‘it seemed’ alongside hesitations provides indication of insecurity.

Most influential is witness confidence.

Fact finders ought to be cautious about making inferences about witnesses who appear to be unconfident or use powerless speech as this may be due to personality traits like shyness, or due to race / gender / class, rather as an indicator of unreliability.

Studies have shown there is a modest link between confidence and accuracy, and sometimes no link at all. Confidence can be inadvertently or deliberately enhances by repeatedly going over the same issues, repeatedly asking witnesses to think about their answers, preparing witnesses for trials and providing positive feedback on witness reports or identification of suspects. Confidence can be reduced by aggressive cross-examination as well as general unfamiliarity and stress of legal proceedings – thus should not be given too much weight.

Question 34

Witness reliability analysis

Answer 34

This could be helped by educating fact-finders to make them aware of these perceptions. For example, emphasising to people that confidence does not indicate the witness is reliable, and suggesting that lack of confidence could be to do with stress, personality, or unfamiliarity and should not be used as a reason to find a witness unreliable. Potentially making fact-finders aware of the issues of reliability will reduce these perceptions, thus helping to find the truth.

Question 35

Witness credibility

Answer 35

No greater ability on the part of the fact finders with regards to witness credibility. It seems there are little predictive clues to flushing out liars. Fact finders must rely on what is said and how, studies show that people make assumptions about particular witnesses’ propensity to lie based on stereotypes about particular situations and types of people. Credibility often relies upon the consistency of what is said, however there is evidence to suggest that, in relation to interviewed suspects, liars are more consistent than truthful suspects in terms of the details they report and the statements they make and different times.

Question 36

Role of demeanour - witness credibility

Answer 36

Most frequently relied upon is witness demeanour. Only some clues here are reliable. Facial clues are easily controlled, therefore this is the lease revealing communication channel. No evidence liars are prone to averting their gaze or smiling less. More reliable signs emanate from the less controllable communication channels of body and voice. There is a tendency of liars to speak with raised pitch, more hesitantly and with greater speech errors. Unfortunately, people pay most attention to faces and after that, body language. Signs of lying may turn out to be caused by stress and anxiety of having to testify in court or being interviewed by those in positions of authority, therefore ironically might be the suspicion that one is not being believed that leads to the signs associated with lying. Averting ones gaze or other supposed indicia of lying such as evasive or vague answers may reflect shyness, or different cultural norms. Not everyone displays the same behaviour when lying.

Thus, while impossible not to be influenced by witness demeanour, it is very unreliable indicator or lies or relevant emotional states and can be misleading when evaluating a witness.

Question 37

Witness credibility / reliability analysis

Answer 37

Thus evidence demonstrates people are perhaps poor at evaluating witnesses. This is a problem as it seems, when it comes to credibility, people focus on witness demeanour the most which is proven to be unreliable. It is different in every person and indicators of stress may be similar to those of lying. However, potentially not the biggest problem because, there are ways in which this may be tackled. For example, a screen could be used so people do not focus on the body language of the witness, but focus on the voice which seems to have strong indicators of lying. Furthermore, this may be beneficial for witness reliability too. As confidence is generally taken to be the strongest indicator of reliability, perhaps a screen would make witnesses feel more comfortable if they are giving evidence for example. Special measures could be used more prevalently in the court room such as giving evidence on commission, using a live television link etc. This means people would be in more comfortable environment therefore reducing stress factors.

Question 38

Psychology reform

Answer 38

There is perhaps the argument that the psychology in this area should be made aware to witnesses. However, it is perhaps argued that this would be more harmful than helpful. Even if it is established that the psychology in this area are scientifically valid and consistent, they cannot be used.

One argument is that the contours are too imprecise, for example the fact that longer exposure time enhances memory, it cannot be said the exact ratio between exposure time and memory improvement is unclear. Secondly, even if research reports precise effects of the factors affecting witnessing, it can only report an average effect which for actual witnesses may be magnified, nullified or diminished because of the unknown effect of other factors. For example, stress affects different people in different ways and some elderly witnesses may have impeccable memories.

Reference to information may cause more harm than good. Thus exposure to a plethora or relevant findings, but without the means to weight them up against each other and apply them to the case, might lead fact finders to become confused or paralysed by information overload. This may in turn lead them to resort to peripheral route processing.

Conversely, possible that general warnings about overestimating witness reliability and relying on common-sense signs of witness reliance and credibility might encourage fact finders to concentrate on the content of the testimony – leading to more reliable means of evolution.