Eyewitness Testimony Errors
How reliable is our memory really? We depend on our memory for many aspects of life; however, sometimes we actually remember a misrepresentation of what’s really occurred. This is known as the misinformation effect, where misleading information distorts our memory of the true event. Important in a variety of aspects, these memory errors become especially crucial in terms of courtrooms and eyewitness testimony. Interestingly, 75% of false convictions are due to an eyewitness identifying the wrong person or misreporting how an event actually occurred. Witnesses aren’t intentionally committing these fallacies, but by relying on their misconstrued memory, they genuinely believe they are helping convict the guilty party. The consequences that arise
…show more content…
After being asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, subjects reported a 20% higher average speed in comparison to those who were asked how fast the cars were going when they “hit” each other. The use of these terms biased the subjects’ estimates of speed, hereby altering their recollection of the event. Following a week later, all subjects were asked if they’d seen any broken glass at the scene. Although no glass was actually present, those in the “smashed” condition were more likely to report yes. Not only did certain terms induce bias within initial assessment, but the subtle suggestion of broken glass also affected what the subjects later remembered. Therefore, similar to eyewitness testimony, wording and subtle suggestions can influence people to remember an event in a particular way, even to the extent that they remember aspects that never occurred. In a similar experiment done by Loftus et. al (1979), subjects were shown a video and asked how fast a car was going when passing a yield sign. However, in this video, there was no yield sign. Due to this insertion of misinformation, the yield condition felt more familiar and when presented with two images, one with a yield sign and one with a stop sign, subjects more often chose the inaccurate image containing the yield sign. Therefore, the introduction of information following an event can also change recall – further highlighting the misinformation
After being asked how fast the cars were going when they “smashed” into each other, subjects reported a 20% higher average speed in comparison to those who were asked how fast the cars were going when they “hit” each other. The use of these terms biased the subjects’ estimates of speed, hereby altering their recollection of the event. Following a week later, all subjects were asked if they’d seen any broken glass at the scene. Although no glass was actually present, those in the “smashed” condition were more likely to report yes. Not only did certain terms induce bias within initial assessment, but the subtle suggestion of broken glass also affected what the subjects later remembered. Therefore, similar to eyewitness testimony, wording and subtle suggestions can influence people to remember an event in a particular way, even to the extent that they remember aspects that never occurred. In a similar experiment done by Loftus et. al (1979), subjects were shown a video and asked how fast a car was going when passing a yield sign. However, in this video, there was no yield sign. Due to this insertion of misinformation, the yield condition felt more familiar and when presented with two images, one with a yield sign and one with a stop sign, subjects more often chose the inaccurate image containing the yield sign. Therefore, the introduction of information following an event can also change recall – further highlighting the misinformation