Eyewitness memory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article or section is in the middle of an expansion or major revamping.
You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well.
Please view the edit history should you wish to contact the person who placed this template. If this article has not been edited in several days please remove this template. Consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page hasn't been edited in several days.

Eyewitness memory refers to the episodic memory of specific event, often a crime. Eyewitness memory, which is relied upon in the process of eyewitness identification, is thought to be fragile and easily distorted by information obtained post-event.[1]

Contents

[edit] Fragility of eyewitness memory

[edit] Vunerability to post-event distortion

See also: Interference theory.

As with all memories, eyewitness memories can be distorted by what we previously knew (proactive interference) or what we learn in the future (retroactive interference). The distortion of memories by these means has been widely studied in relation to interference theory.

In the case of eyewitness memory, retroactive interference perhaps as a result of police questioning, can lead to difficulty in accurate recall.

The following 1974 study by Loftus and Palmer has been widely cited as evidence[citation needed] for the fragility of eyewitness memory to post-event distortion:

Participants were presented with photographic slides of a multiple vehicular accident. Experimental group participants were then asked either "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?" or "About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?". Participants were questioned a week later as to whether they had seen broken glass in the photographic slides. Although no broken glass was in actuality present in the slides, 32% of participants originally asked if the cars had "smashed into each other" reported they has. This was in comparison to only 14% of those asked if the cars "had hit each other". The conclusion being that the information in the question affected recall of the event.[2][3]

[edit] Verbal overshadowing of visual recall

It has been suggested that verbal reports may interfere with visual recall of an event. This was concluded by Schooler and Engstler-Schooler following their study in 1990. Participants in this study initially viewed a video recording of a crime. Subsequently one group of participants made a detailed verbal report of the physical appearance of the criminal whilst the other group performed an unrelated task. All participants then were asked to visually identify the criminal. The group which made the verbal report performed significantly worse in this final visual identification task. [4] Subsequent research has largely replicated these findings by Schooler et al. although alternative conclusions have been made. [5]

[edit] Weapon focus

See also Weapon focus.

[edit] Face recognition

See also Face perception.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Principles of Cog. Psychology, Eyesenck, M.W. 2nd ed (2003), pp229
  2. ^ Principles of Cog. Psychology, Eyesenck, M.W. 2nd ed (2003), pp221
  3. ^ PsychExchange.co.uk
  4. ^ Principles of Cog. Psychology, Eyesenck, M.W. 2nd ed (2003),p222
  5. ^ http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=christian_meissner