Jump to content

Eyewitness memory: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Verbal overshadowing of visual recall: minor copyedit for readability
Psyc3330 w11 (talk | contribs)
3,107 edits
Expanded entry
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Eyewitness memory''' refers to [[episodic memories]] that occur most frequently to the [[witness]] of [[crimes]] and dramatic events. These witness testimonies are highly relied upon in the judicial system. However, their validity is sometimes questioned due to the many influences that may take part in creating and maintaining these [[memories]]. Many experts have accumulated evidence suggesting that eyewitness memory is volatile ([[Elizabeth Loftus|Loftus]], 1980).<ref>Loftus, E., F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. ''Journal of Applied Psychology'', 65(1): 9-15.</ref> Variability in eyewitness memories can be influenced by episodic memory systems, [[photographic memory]], age, [[facial recognition]], and various factors including [[confidence]], [[Interference theory|interference]], and [[mental state]].
'''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.<ref>Principles of Cog. Psychology, Eyesenck, M.W. 2nd ed (2003), pp229</ref>
⚫
It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in [[wrongful conviction]] of otherwise innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this, and some research indicates that mistaken eyewitness identification accounts for more [[convictions]] of the innocent than all other factors combined.<ref>Wells & Bradfield, 1998; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000.</ref><ref>Haber, R. N., Haber, L. (2000). Experiencing, remembering and reporting events. ''Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6''(4): 1057-1097. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.1057</ref> Other causes can include, but are not limited to, poorly trained interrogators or forensic scientists, human error in forensics, [[false confessions]], unreliable [[informant#Jailhouse informants|jailhouse informant]]s, inadequate defense, [[prosecutorial misconduct]], and tampering or withholding police evidence.


==Fragility of eyewitness memory==
===Vulnerability to post-event distortion===


== Influential Factors ==
⚫
{{seealso|Interference theory}}
=== Memory Confidence ===


As a witness identifies a [[perpetrator]], the [[Eyewitness identification|identification]] can be made with a particular degree of [[confidence]]. This may cause significant [[individual]] differences between witnesses. There are two types of confidence: confidence in a witness’ own ability to make an identification (prior to viewing a police line up) and confidence in having made a accurate identification or accurate rejection.
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]].
<br />
===== '''''Confidence in ability to make an accurate identification''''' =====
Confidence of the witness in his/her ability to make [[correct]] identification should not be used to [[assess]] the accuracy of identification. Witnesses should be asked to [[attempt]] identifications, even if their confidence [[Decline|declines]]. A witness’ confidence in his/her [[ability]] to retrieve an accurate identification preceding the actual identification task is not important to the accuracy of the subsequent [[judgment]], as post-identification confidence is a better [[predictor]]. <ref name = "sporer">Sporer, S, & Penrod, S. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence–accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies . ''Psychological Bulletin'', 118(3), 315 - 327. </ref>
<br />


====='''''Confidence in having made a correct identification''''' =====
In the case of eyewitness memory, retroactive interference perhaps as a result of [[police]] questioning, can lead to difficulty in accurate recall.
In [[numerous]] experiments, after having given a judgement on the line-up test, witnesses are asked to [[evaluate]] their confidence in their choice. After analysis of post-judgment confidence accuracy, witnesses who were exceedingly confident in their identifications are only slightly more likely to be correct when compared to witnesses who exhibit little confidence in their [[decision]]. <ref name = "sporer" />
A number of [[psychologists]] have investigated factors that might account for the confidence accuracy relationship.
<br />


===== '''Proposed Theories''' =====
A 1974 study by Loftus and Palmer suggests that eyewitness memory is highly vulnerable 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 <u>smashed</u> into each other?" or "About how fast were the cars going when they <u>hit</u> 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 "<u>smashed</u> into each other" reported they had. This was in comparison to only 14% of those asked if the cars "had <u>hit</u> each other," the conclusion being that the information in the question affected recall of the event.<ref>Principles of Cog. Psychology, Eyesenck, M.W. 2nd ed (2003), pp221</ref><ref>[http://www.psychexchange.co.uk/file17.html PsychExchange.co.uk<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
The [[Optimality theory|optimality hypothesis]] proposed by Deffenbacher (1980) states that factors which influence the [[optimality]] of information processing also influence the reliability of the confidence [[estimate]]. During situations in which information processing conditions are less than [[optimal]] (ex. the perpetrator is disguised as the exposure duration is brief) the witness is less [[precise]] on the identification test and demonstrates less dependable confidence estimate. The confidence accuracy correlation is thus estimated to be stronger in conditions that help optimal information processing, such as longer [[exposure time]], and weaker under [[conditions]] that [[disable]] information processing. <ref>Deffenbacher, K, & , Initials. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence. ''Law and Human Behavior'', 4(4), 243-260. </ref>
<br />
Leippe (1980) suggested that certain factors impact identification accuracy without influencing confidence, where as other factors influence confidence without having an effect on identification accuracy. For example, [[reconstructive]] processes in memory (i.e. the influence of post-event information on stored memories) can influence identification accuracy while not necessarily impacting confidence. [[Social influence]] processes (i.e. [[Commitment|committing]] to a decision) might have an effect on confidence judgements while having little to no effect on the accuracy of the identification. <ref name = "Leippe">Leippe, MR. (1980). Effects of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence . ''Law and Human Behavior'', 4(4), 261-274. </ref>


Although it was thought that confidence of a witness in identifying suspects was very important in the accuracy of identification, it is not. Accuracy in identification is [[situational]] and depends on the [[circumstances]] surrounding [[testimony]], such as what is neighboring the crime and the identification procedures used. Nonetheless, the confidence of a witness during identification is generally a weak predictor of identification accuracy, as are the quality of descriptions and consistency between descriptions.<ref name = "Leippe" /> These factors should not be taken into account when choosing whether or not to conduct a police line-up. When evaluating identification evidence, greater [[attention]] should be paid to the circumstances surrounding the identification, as the confidence of the eyewitness less [[pertinent]].
===Verbal overshadowing of visual recall===


<br />
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.
<br />
<ref>Principles of Cog. Psychology, Eyesenck, M.W. 2nd ed (2003),p222</ref> Some of the subsequent [[research]] has failed to replicate these findings by Schooler et al,<ref>http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1</ref> while others have replicated the findings, although alternative conclusions have been made. <ref>http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=christian_meissner</ref>


⚫
=== Interference ===
===Mistaken Eyewitness Identification===


The [[testimony]] of a [[witness]] can lose [[validity]] due to many [[Externality|external stimuli]] that may affect what was witnessed during the crime, and therefore obstruct [[memory]]. For example, if an individual witnesses a car accident on a very public street, there may be too many cues distracting the witness from the main focus. So many interfering stimulus [[inputs]] may have [[suppressed]] the importance of the stimulus of focus, the accident. This can cause [[memory trace|memory traces]] for the event to [[degrade]] and the [[representations]] for those memories may [[diminish]]. This is known as the cue-[[Sensory overload|overload]] [[principle]].<ref>Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. ''Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20''(5), 1063 – 1087.</ref>
⚫
It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in [[wrongful conviction]] of otherwise innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this, and some research indicates that mistaken eyewitness identification accounts for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined.<ref>Wells & Bradfield, 1998; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000.</ref> Those other causes can include, but are not limited to, poorly trained interrogators or forensic scientists, human error in forensics, [[false confessions]], unreliable [[informant#Jailhouse informants|jailhouse informant]]s, inadequate defense, [[prosecutorial misconduct]], and police evidence tampering or withholding.
Another [[phenomena]] that may interfere with an eyewitness’ memory, is [[retroactive interference]]. This occurs when new information is processed and can therefore [[obstruct]] old information.<ref>Barnes, J. M., & Underwood, B.J. (1959). Fate of first-list association in transfer theory.'' Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58''(2), 97 – 105.</ref> A common interference that may occur after the event of a crime is the reporting of the crime. Police investigations include [[questioning]], and make [[suggestions]]. The processing of new information may [[disrupt]] or entirely replace old information, thus losing it.<ref>Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witness increases eyewitness suggestibility. ''Association of Psychological Science, 20''(1), 66 – 72.</ref><br />

==== '''Post event information''' ====

[[Elapsed real time|Elapsed time]] after a crime alone can greatly affect the [[probability]] of a witness correctly identifying a [[suspect]]. However, this is not the only influence; events that occurr between the time of the crime and the [[Eyewitness identification|identification]] can [[alter]] these results. [[Elizabeth Loftus]] (1979)<ref name = "Loftuss">Loftus, E., F. (1979). Malleability of human memory.'' American Scientist, 67''(3):312-320</ref> suggested that interrogation procedures and related events are possibly sources of [[distortions]] to eyewitness memory.
A study by Cutler, Penrod, and Martens (1987) <ref>Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification The role of system and estimator variables.'' Law and Human Behavior, 11''(3), 233 – 258.</ref> [[Analyse|analysed]] the effects of [[Refresh|refreshing]] a witness’ memory by allowing the witness to examine his/her own written description of the perpetrator. Some witnesses were asked to view the description just before a line-up. When paired with other interviewing techniques designed to improve memory, the description analysis improved identification accuracy. However, when review of the description was not paired with other techniques, the effects varied. In situations that made the description of the perpetrator difficult, such as [[disguise]] during robbery, the description review resulted in poorer identification accuracy. In conditions that made a correct description less difficult, such as perpetrator not disguised, the description review resulted in an increasingly accurate judgement.
As well, the effects of [[Rehearsal|mental rehearsal]] on detail, recollection, and line-up recollection preceding a [[Staged trial|staged robbery]] were studied. In this study the participants witnessed the robbery event, where some participants asked to [[Continual improvement|continually]] rehearse the event in their mind. It was suggested that rehearsal improved detail recollection. Participants in the rehearsed condition showed improved recognition judgements after a short delay following the event, however when [[delay]] was increased (a week) [[performance]] was reduced.
<ref>Read, J. D.,Hammersley, R., Cross-Calvert, S., McFadzen, E. (1989). Rehersal of faces and details in action events. ''Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3''(4): 295-311. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2350030403</ref>
===== Suggestive interrogation procedures =====

[[Distortions]] in a witness’s memory can be induced by [[suggestive questioning]] procedures. If such [[techniques]] are used by investigators, memory for a [[perpetrator]] may be altered and as a result, identification accuracy might [[decline]]. Exposing witnesses to other descriptions from other witnesses can change a witness’ memory, especially if the description is [[deceptive]]. <ref>Wells , G, & Olsen , E. (2003). eyewitness testimony . Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295. </ref> An example of such misleading information could be suggesting that the perpetrator had a beard, while he did not.

===== Mug shot searches =====
Another [[technique]] commonly used in identification [[investigations]] is the [[mug shot]] procedure. Numerous studies have shown such procedures can influence [[Eyewitness identification|identification]] accuracy.<ref name = "Steblay">Steblay, N, & Dysart, J. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. ''Law and Human Behavior, 25''(5), 459-473.</ref> The presentation of [[mug shot]] arrays does not seem to influence identification accuracy. However it can be influential if the [[Police line-up|police lineups]] include individuals who were featured in the [[mug shot]] [[array]]. Individuals appearing in [[Police lineup|police lineups]] that also appeared in previous photo arrays may be identified as quickly as identifying the actual target. Therefore, in cases where a [[suspect]] is identified from [[mug shots]] following a line-up, it is uncertain whether the line-up identification is a result of the recognition of the [[perpetrator]] or of the detection of person seen previously in the [[Mug shots|mugs shots]].<ref name = "Steblay" />

<br />

=== View point ===

Many studies, as well as police [[procedures]], are dependent on photo lineups or [[Police lineup|police lineups]] where the eyewitness views the [[suspects]] from a distance. This proceedure is done in an attempt to eliminate suspects and identify the [[perpetrator]]. These types of line-ups allow only small [[Degree|degrees]] of visual information for the [[eyewitness]], such as limited [[Angles|viewing angles]] which would restrict the level of detail, compared to a [[computerized]] virtual line-up where witnesses can see the [[targets]] from multiple angles and distances. One might anticipate that examination of the suspects from unlimted viewpoints would allow for better recognition cues, then when compared to limited views. However, unlimited visual information may be disadvantageous and [[counterproductive]] if the information offered at the time of retrieval was not actually present at the time of memory encoding. <ref name = "Bailenson">Bailenson, J, & Davies , A. (2008). The effects of witness viewpoint distance, angle, and choice on eyewitness accuracy in police lineups conducted in immersive virtual environments. ''PRESENCE'', 17(3), 242-255. </ref>For example, if an [[eyewitness]] only saw the face of the [[perpetrator]] from one angle, seeing the line-up participants from other [[viewpoints]] might be distracting. Other studies have demonstrated that unlimited viewpoints do improve accuracy in police lineups.<ref name = "Bailenson" /> It should also be noted that the eyewitness accuracy improves when the distance between the suspect and witness matches the [[distance]] during the initial witnessing of the crime. <ref>Lindsay, R, & Semmler, C. (2008). How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. ''Law Hum Behavior'', 32, 526–535. </ref>

<br />

=== Mental state ===

The mental state of an individual both during a crime and during [[testimony]] can affect how well [[memory retrieval]] may be. Although [[stress]] and [[Arousal|arousal]] in small amounts can aid memory, stress in higher amounts can hinder memory performance. Witnesses of a crime can even suffer from more severe implications, such as [[Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder]] (PTSD)<ref name = "Amir">Amir, N., Leiner, A. S., & Bomyea, J. (2010). Implicit memory and posttraumatic stress symptoms. ''Cognitive Therapy & Research'', 34, 49 – 58.</ref> or even [[Psychogenic Amnesia]].<ref>Pujol, M. & Kopelman, M. D. (2003). Psychogenic Amnesia. ''Practical Neurology, 3'', 292 – 299.</ref> Studies show that PTSD can [[Negative affect|negatively affect]] memory. A study found that there is a negative correlation between individuals with PTSD and [[explicit memory]]; the type of memory most commonly used in [[testimony]]. This may be due to individuals trying to [[Thought suppression|suppress]] and [[forget]] the [[traumatic]] event that they were involved in, which is a common [[symptom]] of PTSD. There was however, a stronger positive correlation with PTSD and [[implicit memory]], than when compared to non-PTSD patients.<ref name = "Amir" /> That is, individuals suffering from PTSD had greater implicit memory than individuals not suffering from the disorder. Although explicit memory is more commonly used in [[eyewitness testimony]], implicit memory may still be used.
[[Psychogenic amnesia]] can [[Severe|severely]] affect explicit memory. In the event that an individual witnessing of a crime is diagnosed with psychogenic amnesia, also known as dissociative amnesia, the individual will lose all memory of the traumatic event. These cases are most often associated with extremely violent crimes and/or murder.<ref name = "Pyszora">Pyszora, N. M., Barker, A. F., & Kopelman, M. D. (2003) Amnesia for criminal offenses: A study of life sentence prisoners. ''The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 14'', 475 – 490.</ref>
In less severe cases, that is without a psychological [[diagnosis]], memory is also affected. Studies show that [[moderate]] levels of [[stress]] can help memory. Results show that exposure to stress following [[Recall (memory)|recall]], assists in activating the [[emotional memory]] that was involved during the event by 13.5%. Moreover, in cases such as the witnessing of a crime, the mood-congruency effect ([[mood congruence]]) also comes into play. The mood-congruency effect occurs when an individual is retrieving memory while in the same mood-state as when learning occurred.<ref name = "Pyszora" /> Similar to [[context-dependent memory]], the mood congruency effect also improves memory, however it is achieved through internal mechanisms, instead of external. Biologically, moderate amounts of stress memory may also be improved by the release of [[corticosteroids]]. Conversely, too much stress, and therefore an extreme influx of corticosteroids can affect function of the [[hippocampus]], a part of the brain that mediates memory, and therefore hinder memory. Very high levels of corticosteroid release may even cause [[amnesia]].<ref>Joseph, R. (1998). Traumatic amnesia, repression, and hippocampus injury due to emotional stress, corticosteroids, and enkephalins. ''Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29''(2), 169 – 179.</ref>

<br />

=== Context reinstatement ===
[[Context-dependent memory|Contextual reinstatement]] is a common [[technique]] used to help eyewitnesses remember [[details]] about a specific environment– reviewing the initial environment in which the original information was encoded. Taking a witness back to the scene where the event occurred, for example, will help [[facilitate]] the accuracy in identifying perpetrators. Reinstatement is thought to improve recall as it provides memory retrieval cues. Research has demonstrated that pairing faces of suspects or words with contextual cues at the scene of the crime will enhance performance on recognition tasks.<ref>Gilbert, A. A. E., Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. ''Applied cognitive Psychology, 20''(6): 723-739. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1232</ref><ref>MacLeod, M. (2002). Retrieval-induced forgetting in eyewitness memory: forgetting as a consequence of remembering. ''Applied cognitive Psychology, 16''(2): 135-149. DOI: 10.1002/acp.782</ref> Therefore, it seems practical that these results can be applied to eyewitness [[identification]]. Methods commonly used to examine context reinstatement include photographs of the environment/scene, mental contextual reinstatement cues, and guided [[Recall (memory)|recollection]]. Studies show that re-exposing participants to the crime scene does enhance performance in facial recognition. <ref> Smith , S, & Vela, E. (1992). Environmental context-dependent eyewitness recognition. ''Applied Cognitive Psychology'', 6(2), 125 - 139.</ref> There were also notable effects for context reinstatement where improvement on correct identifications while increasing false alarms. Reports also show that the magnitude of improvement via context reinstatement increased in life-like situations compared to laboratory studies. <ref name = "Smith"> Smith, S, & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis. ''Psychonomic Bulletin & Review'', 8(2), 203-20.</ref>
==
==== '''Experimental Context''' ====
An [[alteration]] of [[context]] was found to be one of the most important predictors of recognition accuracy. Such changes in experiential context have been shown to have effects similar to [[transformations]] in appearance, such as [[disguises]]. Criminal identifications can be influenced by a change in context. Investigators must account for the fact that encountering an [[acquaintance]] that we usually see in one context, such as work place, alters memory [[generalizability]] when compared to encountering the same acquaintance in another environment that acts like an [[Associate|unassociated]] context. such as a grocery store. The changes in [[environment]] make it difficult to identify this acquaintance. <ref name = "Smith" /> Initially, the individual might seem familiar but because this person is not in the normal context, it might be difficult to place the face and recall the name. Researchers have begun to implement procedures for reinstating the context surrounding a specific event in an attempt to improve identification accuracy. [[Reinstatement|Reinstating]] the crime scene is often not possible sometimes, however it is possible to have eyewitnesses imagine and thus mentally reinstate the surroundings with imagery instructions and other [[Mnemonic device|mnemonic devices]].<ref name = "Smith" /> In some instances, objects from the crime scene such as guns or clothing can be used additionally to help reinstate the context. Such methods have successfully shown to improve [[reliability]] and accuracy of eyewitness recall.

<br />

== Misinformation effect ==

Witnesses can be be subject of [[Distortions|memory distortions]] that can alter their account of events. It is of particular interest that the memory of an eyewitness can become [[compromised]] by other information, such that an individual's memory becomes [[biased]]. This can increase Eyewitnesses' sensitivity to the [[misinformation effect]]. Individuals report what they believe to have witnessed at the time the crime occurred, even though this may be the result of a [[fabricated]] [[false memory]]. These effects can be a result of post event information.<ref name = "Loftuss" /> It is very important to provide witnesses with helpful response options on memory tests and to be warned of [[misleading]] influences that might affect how the memory of the event is [[Recall (memory)|recalled]] at a later time.<ref>Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. ''Memory & Cognition, 33''(5): 770-782. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193073</ref> Many [[employees]], police force workers, and others are trained in post-warning, in order to reduce influences on the misinformation effect, which can be predicted before crime. In their studies, many [[Researcher|researchers]] use eyewitnesses to study retrieval-blocking effects, which interfere with a witness’ ability to recall information.<ref>Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effect in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. ''Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29''(5): 813-825. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.813</ref> Misleading information prior to the event can also influence misinformation effects. However, retrieval-blocking methods can counteract [[misleading]] information in most cases. In addition, when eyewitnesses are given warning to avoid misinformation, more significant and accurate testimonies could be produced. Other studies also address how misinformation effect seems to [[amplify]] over increasing recall.<ref>Roediger III J, H. L., Jacoby, D., McDermott, K. B. (1996). Misinformation effects in recall: creating false memories through repeated retrieval. ''Journal of Memory and Language, 35''(2): 300-318. DOI: 1006/jmla.1996.0017</ref> Discussing events and being questioned multiple times may cause various versions of the testimonies. However, the earliest records prove to be most accurate due to a minimized misinformation effect.

== Children and Testimony ==

Children’s Testimony refers to when children are required to [[testify]] in court after witnessing or being involved in a crime. A child may be the main or only witness for a crime committed; and as a result, it is common to find a child in the middle of a criminal case serving as an eyewitness. Cases may last for years, potentially causing children to be involved in the interviewing process for prolonged periods of time. Many long delays between the time of the criminal event and their interviews may effect the memory for the event. Therefore, [[long-term memory]] is often studied in children’s testimony. Both [[procedural memory]] and [[declarative memory]] are used in testimonies.<ref name = "Gordon">Gordon, B. N., Baker-Ward, L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2001). Children’s Testimony: A review on research of memory for past experiences. ''Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4''(2), 2001.</ref> In situations where a child is the main witness of a crime, the result of the hearing is dependant on his or her memory of the event. Factors that would influence the testimony include how well a child can identify the individuals involved, the setting of the crime, and the accuracy of their explanation. Children can also be involved in testimony not only when they are witnesses, but also when they are victims . Due to the [[sensitivity]] of these cases, strategic interviewing is [[Implementation|implemented]] for children, which may result in the validity of the memory to suffer. [[interviewing|Strategic interviewing]] must be assessed with sensitivity on an individual bases and without leading questions, as they may influence the child’s answer.<ref>Goodman, G. S., & Schaaf, J. M. (1997). Over a decade of research on children’s eyewitness testimony: What have we learned? Where do we go from here?. ''Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11'', S6 – S20.</ref> Additional influences may include individuals surrounding the child prior to, and during the hearing. If children hear new information from such individuals, studies show that children will more than likely agree with what the others said – regardless of the child’s initial opinion.<ref>Ma, L., & Ganea, P. A. (2010). Dealing with conflicting information: Young children’s reliance on what they see versus what they are told. ''Developmental Science, 13''(1), 151 – 160.</ref> Studies on children show that the average child is at greater risk for memory loss, due to the brain’s immaturity and [[Plasticity (brain)|plasticity]], when compared to an average adult.<ref>Joseph, R. (1998). Traumatic amnesia, repression, and hippocampus injury due to emotional stress, corticosteroids, and enkephalins. ''Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29''(2), 169 – 179.</ref> It has been shown that, information encoded and stored in memory is dependent on the extent of knowledge regarding the event. That is, if a child is exposed to an event that he or she knows little about, their memory of the event will not be as accurate when compared to a child who is more [[knowledgeable]] on event-related topics.<ref name = "Gordon" /> Furthermore, studies show that multiple interviews can ensure a more accurate testimony, as they can improve the accuracy of one’s memory.<ref> Brainerd, C. and Ornstein, P. A. (1991). Children's memory for witnessed events: The develop- mental backdrop. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections (pp. 10- 20). Washington, DC </ref> However, when leading and [[Misguided|misguidanc]]e become involved, children who are interviewed and questioned multiple times may begin to believe what was discussed in previous interviews actually occurred.<ref>Gordon, B. N., Baker-Ward, L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2001). Children’s Testimony: A review on research of memory for past experiences.'' Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4''(2), 2001</ref>

== Facial Recognition ==

Court systems heavily rely on an eyewitness’ memory for faces. The usefulness of eyewitnesses’ memory for [[facial recognition]] may not be valid and it has been shown that in experimental tasks, [[participant|participant performance]] was closer to chance than actually being able to [[Recognize|recognize]] faces previously presented.<ref>Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, M., Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captures on video. ''Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5''(4): 339-360</ref> These face-specific [[Cognitive process|cognitive]] and neural processes show contributions to holistic processing and recognition in the episodic memories of eyewitnesses.<ref>Kanwisher, N., Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. ''Philosophical Translations of The Royal Society, 361'': 2109-2128. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1934</ref> [[Unreliable|Unreliability]] may be a result of mismatching between how faces are holistically and [[composite]] systems retrieve features in faces during an event.<ref>Wells, G. L., Hasel, L. E. (2007). Facial composite production by eyewitnesses. ''Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16''(1):6-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00465.x</ref> It can be suggested that race bias may also influence recognition for faces, which can significantly affect the memory of a witness. Individuals who identify most closely with a particular race or their own race, show less reliability in identifying other unfamiliar races.<ref>Shriver, E., Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., Lanter, J. (2008). Class, race, and the face: social context modulates the cross-race effect in face recognition. ''Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34''(2): 260-274. DOI: 10.1177/0146167207310455</ref> This suggests that memory is an individual process and that [[conceptualization]] of race causes racial [[ambiguity]] in facial recognition. [[Race|Monoracial]] eyewitnesses may depend on categorization more than [[multiracial]] eyewitnesses, who develop a more [[Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies|fluid concept]] of race.<ref>Pauker, K., Ambady, N. (2009). Multiracial faces: how catergorization affects memory at the boundaries of race. ''Journal of Social Issues, 65''(1): 69-86. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01588.x</ref> [[Perception]] may affect the immediate encoding of these unreliable notions due to prejudices, which can influence the speed of processing and classification of racially ambiguous targets. The [[ambiguity]] in eyewitness memory facial recognition can be attributed to the [[Divergent|divergent strategies]] that are used when under the influence of [[Racial bias|racial bias]].

== Photographic Memory (Eidetic Memory) ==

[[Perception]] and knowledge of the world stem and expand from the selection and [[Integration|integration]] of [[Stimulus (psychology)|stimuli]] hitting our [[Sensory receptor|sensory receptors]].<ref name = "Brady">Brady, T, & Konkle, T. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. ''PNAS, 1''03(38), 14325–14329. </ref> As a result, the most precise visual memories possible could only be the images that created the initial visual integration and not the stimulus array itself. Individuals who are said to posses “eidetic memories”(eidetic memory), may be of particular use in courtrooms when acting as an eyewitness, as they have the ability to hold to an image in mind for longer and with more accuracy than the average individual.<ref name = "turtle">Turtle, J., Want, S. C. (2008). Logic and research versus intuition and past practice as guides to gathering and evaluating eyewitness evidence. ''Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35''(10):1256-2008.DOI:10.1177/0093854808321879</ref> This would be particularly useful at the time of a crime to retain images such as the [[Perpetrator|perpetrator’s]] face, clothes, license plate, etc. These mental photographs may be comparable to presenting a real [[tangible]] photograph of the event witnessed. However, the memories of those who claim to have superior photographic memories are just as flawed as the memories of individuals who have normal [[Mnemonic|mnemonic abilities]].<ref>Haber, L., Haber, R. N. (1998). Criteria for judging the admissibility of eyewitness testimoney of long past events. ''Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4''(4):1135-1159.DOI:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1135</ref> This would affect the validity of testimonies from witnesses with photographic memories. Witnesses who believe that they are able to retrieve an accurate mental photograph will be much more confident in their account of the event and may influence the trial outcome.<ref name = "turtle" /> Accuracy recall of such visual scenes is a [[controversial]] issue. In the past, eidetikers were believed to have extremely accurate recall for visual displays, but modern research findings might reveal a different story. Some research demonstrates that eidetic children have greater recall accuracy for visual details compared to non-eidetic children. Other researchers have failed to any advantage between the two groups. It is also [[Hypothesize|hypothesized]] that eidetic imagery is not exactly related to memory and improve recall for visual details. If this is true, photographic memory is not particularly in the courtroom, which could explain the general failure to detect its existence in adults. <ref name = "Brady" /> Eidetikers cannot produce images of each and every sensory experience on demand. Alternatively, images are created only if the stimulus contains interesting material and a coherent structure. This characteristic critically reduces possible application to criminal justice. Even though there are various thoughts and ideas regarding photographic memory, some people do have exceptional memories, which will help improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification.
The frequency of [[eidetic imagery]] is low in adults and shows greatest frequency in [[Child development|early child development]]. However it is almost non-existent past the age of 7. When procedures are used to classify eidetic memory separate from the characteristic of [[afterimage]] and memory image, a small number of children are classified as true eidetikers.


==See also==
==See also==
Line 27: Line 96:
*[[Weapon focus]]
*[[Weapon focus]]


==References==
== References ==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Reflist}}


[[Category:Memory]]
[[Category:Memory]]

Revision as of 17:52, 4 April 2011

Eyewitness memory refers to episodic memories that occur most frequently to the witness of crimes and dramatic events. These witness testimonies are highly relied upon in the judicial system. However, their validity is sometimes questioned due to the many influences that may take part in creating and maintaining these memories. Many experts have accumulated evidence suggesting that eyewitness memory is volatile (Loftus, 1980).[1] Variability in eyewitness memories can be influenced by episodic memory systems, photographic memory, age, facial recognition, and various factors including confidence, interference, and mental state. It has long been speculated that mistaken eyewitness identification plays a major role in wrongful conviction of otherwise innocent individuals. A growing body of research now supports this, and some research indicates that mistaken eyewitness identification accounts for more convictions of the innocent than all other factors combined.[2][3] Other causes can include, but are not limited to, poorly trained interrogators or forensic scientists, human error in forensics, false confessions, unreliable jailhouse informants, inadequate defense, prosecutorial misconduct, and tampering or withholding police evidence.


Influential Factors

Memory Confidence

As a witness identifies a perpetrator, the identification can be made with a particular degree of confidence. This may cause significant individual differences between witnesses. There are two types of confidence: confidence in a witness’ own ability to make an identification (prior to viewing a police line up) and confidence in having made a accurate identification or accurate rejection.

Confidence in ability to make an accurate identification

Confidence of the witness in his/her ability to make correct identification should not be used to assess the accuracy of identification. Witnesses should be asked to attempt identifications, even if their confidence declines. A witness’ confidence in his/her ability to retrieve an accurate identification preceding the actual identification task is not important to the accuracy of the subsequent judgment, as post-identification confidence is a better predictor. [4]

Confidence in having made a correct identification

In numerous experiments, after having given a judgement on the line-up test, witnesses are asked to evaluate their confidence in their choice. After analysis of post-judgment confidence accuracy, witnesses who were exceedingly confident in their identifications are only slightly more likely to be correct when compared to witnesses who exhibit little confidence in their decision. [4] A number of psychologists have investigated factors that might account for the confidence accuracy relationship.

Proposed Theories

The optimality hypothesis proposed by Deffenbacher (1980) states that factors which influence the optimality of information processing also influence the reliability of the confidence estimate. During situations in which information processing conditions are less than optimal (ex. the perpetrator is disguised as the exposure duration is brief) the witness is less precise on the identification test and demonstrates less dependable confidence estimate. The confidence accuracy correlation is thus estimated to be stronger in conditions that help optimal information processing, such as longer exposure time, and weaker under conditions that disable information processing. [5]


Leippe (1980) suggested that certain factors impact identification accuracy without influencing confidence, where as other factors influence confidence without having an effect on identification accuracy. For example, reconstructive processes in memory (i.e. the influence of post-event information on stored memories) can influence identification accuracy while not necessarily impacting confidence. Social influence processes (i.e. committing to a decision) might have an effect on confidence judgements while having little to no effect on the accuracy of the identification. [6]

Although it was thought that confidence of a witness in identifying suspects was very important in the accuracy of identification, it is not. Accuracy in identification is situational and depends on the circumstances surrounding testimony, such as what is neighboring the crime and the identification procedures used. Nonetheless, the confidence of a witness during identification is generally a weak predictor of identification accuracy, as are the quality of descriptions and consistency between descriptions.[6] These factors should not be taken into account when choosing whether or not to conduct a police line-up. When evaluating identification evidence, greater attention should be paid to the circumstances surrounding the identification, as the confidence of the eyewitness less pertinent.



Interference

The testimony of a witness can lose validity due to many external stimuli that may affect what was witnessed during the crime, and therefore obstruct memory. For example, if an individual witnesses a car accident on a very public street, there may be too many cues distracting the witness from the main focus. So many interfering stimulus inputs may have suppressed the importance of the stimulus of focus, the accident. This can cause memory traces for the event to degrade and the representations for those memories may diminish. This is known as the cue-overload principle.[7] Another phenomena that may interfere with an eyewitness’ memory, is retroactive interference. This occurs when new information is processed and can therefore obstruct old information.[8] A common interference that may occur after the event of a crime is the reporting of the crime. Police investigations include questioning, and make suggestions. The processing of new information may disrupt or entirely replace old information, thus losing it.[9]

Post event information

Elapsed time after a crime alone can greatly affect the probability of a witness correctly identifying a suspect. However, this is not the only influence; events that occurr between the time of the crime and the identification can alter these results. Elizabeth Loftus (1979)[10] suggested that interrogation procedures and related events are possibly sources of distortions to eyewitness memory. A study by Cutler, Penrod, and Martens (1987) [11] analysed the effects of refreshing a witness’ memory by allowing the witness to examine his/her own written description of the perpetrator. Some witnesses were asked to view the description just before a line-up. When paired with other interviewing techniques designed to improve memory, the description analysis improved identification accuracy. However, when review of the description was not paired with other techniques, the effects varied. In situations that made the description of the perpetrator difficult, such as disguise during robbery, the description review resulted in poorer identification accuracy. In conditions that made a correct description less difficult, such as perpetrator not disguised, the description review resulted in an increasingly accurate judgement. As well, the effects of mental rehearsal on detail, recollection, and line-up recollection preceding a staged robbery were studied. In this study the participants witnessed the robbery event, where some participants asked to continually rehearse the event in their mind. It was suggested that rehearsal improved detail recollection. Participants in the rehearsed condition showed improved recognition judgements after a short delay following the event, however when delay was increased (a week) performance was reduced. [12]

Suggestive interrogation procedures

Distortions in a witness’s memory can be induced by suggestive questioning procedures. If such techniques are used by investigators, memory for a perpetrator may be altered and as a result, identification accuracy might decline. Exposing witnesses to other descriptions from other witnesses can change a witness’ memory, especially if the description is deceptive. [13] An example of such misleading information could be suggesting that the perpetrator had a beard, while he did not.

Mug shot searches

Another technique commonly used in identification investigations is the mug shot procedure. Numerous studies have shown such procedures can influence identification accuracy.[14] The presentation of mug shot arrays does not seem to influence identification accuracy. However it can be influential if the police lineups include individuals who were featured in the mug shot array. Individuals appearing in police lineups that also appeared in previous photo arrays may be identified as quickly as identifying the actual target. Therefore, in cases where a suspect is identified from mug shots following a line-up, it is uncertain whether the line-up identification is a result of the recognition of the perpetrator or of the detection of person seen previously in the mugs shots.[14]


View point

Many studies, as well as police procedures, are dependent on photo lineups or police lineups where the eyewitness views the suspects from a distance. This proceedure is done in an attempt to eliminate suspects and identify the perpetrator. These types of line-ups allow only small degrees of visual information for the eyewitness, such as limited viewing angles which would restrict the level of detail, compared to a computerized virtual line-up where witnesses can see the targets from multiple angles and distances. One might anticipate that examination of the suspects from unlimted viewpoints would allow for better recognition cues, then when compared to limited views. However, unlimited visual information may be disadvantageous and counterproductive if the information offered at the time of retrieval was not actually present at the time of memory encoding. [15]For example, if an eyewitness only saw the face of the perpetrator from one angle, seeing the line-up participants from other viewpoints might be distracting. Other studies have demonstrated that unlimited viewpoints do improve accuracy in police lineups.[15] It should also be noted that the eyewitness accuracy improves when the distance between the suspect and witness matches the distance during the initial witnessing of the crime. [16]


Mental state

The mental state of an individual both during a crime and during testimony can affect how well memory retrieval may be. Although stress and arousal in small amounts can aid memory, stress in higher amounts can hinder memory performance. Witnesses of a crime can even suffer from more severe implications, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)[17] or even Psychogenic Amnesia.[18] Studies show that PTSD can negatively affect memory. A study found that there is a negative correlation between individuals with PTSD and explicit memory; the type of memory most commonly used in testimony. This may be due to individuals trying to suppress and forget the traumatic event that they were involved in, which is a common symptom of PTSD. There was however, a stronger positive correlation with PTSD and implicit memory, than when compared to non-PTSD patients.[17] That is, individuals suffering from PTSD had greater implicit memory than individuals not suffering from the disorder. Although explicit memory is more commonly used in eyewitness testimony, implicit memory may still be used. Psychogenic amnesia can severely affect explicit memory. In the event that an individual witnessing of a crime is diagnosed with psychogenic amnesia, also known as dissociative amnesia, the individual will lose all memory of the traumatic event. These cases are most often associated with extremely violent crimes and/or murder.[19] In less severe cases, that is without a psychological diagnosis, memory is also affected. Studies show that moderate levels of stress can help memory. Results show that exposure to stress following recall, assists in activating the emotional memory that was involved during the event by 13.5%. Moreover, in cases such as the witnessing of a crime, the mood-congruency effect (mood congruence) also comes into play. The mood-congruency effect occurs when an individual is retrieving memory while in the same mood-state as when learning occurred.[19] Similar to context-dependent memory, the mood congruency effect also improves memory, however it is achieved through internal mechanisms, instead of external. Biologically, moderate amounts of stress memory may also be improved by the release of corticosteroids. Conversely, too much stress, and therefore an extreme influx of corticosteroids can affect function of the hippocampus, a part of the brain that mediates memory, and therefore hinder memory. Very high levels of corticosteroid release may even cause amnesia.[20]


Context reinstatement

Contextual reinstatement is a common technique used to help eyewitnesses remember details about a specific environment– reviewing the initial environment in which the original information was encoded. Taking a witness back to the scene where the event occurred, for example, will help facilitate the accuracy in identifying perpetrators. Reinstatement is thought to improve recall as it provides memory retrieval cues. Research has demonstrated that pairing faces of suspects or words with contextual cues at the scene of the crime will enhance performance on recognition tasks.[21][22] Therefore, it seems practical that these results can be applied to eyewitness identification. Methods commonly used to examine context reinstatement include photographs of the environment/scene, mental contextual reinstatement cues, and guided recollection. Studies show that re-exposing participants to the crime scene does enhance performance in facial recognition. [23] There were also notable effects for context reinstatement where improvement on correct identifications while increasing false alarms. Reports also show that the magnitude of improvement via context reinstatement increased in life-like situations compared to laboratory studies. [24] ==

Experimental Context

An alteration of context was found to be one of the most important predictors of recognition accuracy. Such changes in experiential context have been shown to have effects similar to transformations in appearance, such as disguises. Criminal identifications can be influenced by a change in context. Investigators must account for the fact that encountering an acquaintance that we usually see in one context, such as work place, alters memory generalizability when compared to encountering the same acquaintance in another environment that acts like an unassociated context. such as a grocery store. The changes in environment make it difficult to identify this acquaintance. [24] Initially, the individual might seem familiar but because this person is not in the normal context, it might be difficult to place the face and recall the name. Researchers have begun to implement procedures for reinstating the context surrounding a specific event in an attempt to improve identification accuracy. Reinstating the crime scene is often not possible sometimes, however it is possible to have eyewitnesses imagine and thus mentally reinstate the surroundings with imagery instructions and other mnemonic devices.[24] In some instances, objects from the crime scene such as guns or clothing can be used additionally to help reinstate the context. Such methods have successfully shown to improve reliability and accuracy of eyewitness recall.


Misinformation effect

Witnesses can be be subject of memory distortions that can alter their account of events. It is of particular interest that the memory of an eyewitness can become compromised by other information, such that an individual's memory becomes biased. This can increase Eyewitnesses' sensitivity to the misinformation effect. Individuals report what they believe to have witnessed at the time the crime occurred, even though this may be the result of a fabricated false memory. These effects can be a result of post event information.[10] It is very important to provide witnesses with helpful response options on memory tests and to be warned of misleading influences that might affect how the memory of the event is recalled at a later time.[25] Many employees, police force workers, and others are trained in post-warning, in order to reduce influences on the misinformation effect, which can be predicted before crime. In their studies, many researchers use eyewitnesses to study retrieval-blocking effects, which interfere with a witness’ ability to recall information.[26] Misleading information prior to the event can also influence misinformation effects. However, retrieval-blocking methods can counteract misleading information in most cases. In addition, when eyewitnesses are given warning to avoid misinformation, more significant and accurate testimonies could be produced. Other studies also address how misinformation effect seems to amplify over increasing recall.[27] Discussing events and being questioned multiple times may cause various versions of the testimonies. However, the earliest records prove to be most accurate due to a minimized misinformation effect.

Children and Testimony

Children’s Testimony refers to when children are required to testify in court after witnessing or being involved in a crime. A child may be the main or only witness for a crime committed; and as a result, it is common to find a child in the middle of a criminal case serving as an eyewitness. Cases may last for years, potentially causing children to be involved in the interviewing process for prolonged periods of time. Many long delays between the time of the criminal event and their interviews may effect the memory for the event. Therefore, long-term memory is often studied in children’s testimony. Both procedural memory and declarative memory are used in testimonies.[28] In situations where a child is the main witness of a crime, the result of the hearing is dependant on his or her memory of the event. Factors that would influence the testimony include how well a child can identify the individuals involved, the setting of the crime, and the accuracy of their explanation. Children can also be involved in testimony not only when they are witnesses, but also when they are victims . Due to the sensitivity of these cases, strategic interviewing is implemented for children, which may result in the validity of the memory to suffer. Strategic interviewing must be assessed with sensitivity on an individual bases and without leading questions, as they may influence the child’s answer.[29] Additional influences may include individuals surrounding the child prior to, and during the hearing. If children hear new information from such individuals, studies show that children will more than likely agree with what the others said – regardless of the child’s initial opinion.[30] Studies on children show that the average child is at greater risk for memory loss, due to the brain’s immaturity and plasticity, when compared to an average adult.[31] It has been shown that, information encoded and stored in memory is dependent on the extent of knowledge regarding the event. That is, if a child is exposed to an event that he or she knows little about, their memory of the event will not be as accurate when compared to a child who is more knowledgeable on event-related topics.[28] Furthermore, studies show that multiple interviews can ensure a more accurate testimony, as they can improve the accuracy of one’s memory.[32] However, when leading and misguidance become involved, children who are interviewed and questioned multiple times may begin to believe what was discussed in previous interviews actually occurred.[33]

Facial Recognition

Court systems heavily rely on an eyewitness’ memory for faces. The usefulness of eyewitnesses’ memory for facial recognition may not be valid and it has been shown that in experimental tasks, participant performance was closer to chance than actually being able to recognize faces previously presented.[34] These face-specific cognitive and neural processes show contributions to holistic processing and recognition in the episodic memories of eyewitnesses.[35] Unreliability may be a result of mismatching between how faces are holistically and composite systems retrieve features in faces during an event.[36] It can be suggested that race bias may also influence recognition for faces, which can significantly affect the memory of a witness. Individuals who identify most closely with a particular race or their own race, show less reliability in identifying other unfamiliar races.[37] This suggests that memory is an individual process and that conceptualization of race causes racial ambiguity in facial recognition. Monoracial eyewitnesses may depend on categorization more than multiracial eyewitnesses, who develop a more fluid concept of race.[38] Perception may affect the immediate encoding of these unreliable notions due to prejudices, which can influence the speed of processing and classification of racially ambiguous targets. The ambiguity in eyewitness memory facial recognition can be attributed to the divergent strategies that are used when under the influence of racial bias.

Photographic Memory (Eidetic Memory)

Perception and knowledge of the world stem and expand from the selection and integration of stimuli hitting our sensory receptors.[39] As a result, the most precise visual memories possible could only be the images that created the initial visual integration and not the stimulus array itself. Individuals who are said to posses “eidetic memories”(eidetic memory), may be of particular use in courtrooms when acting as an eyewitness, as they have the ability to hold to an image in mind for longer and with more accuracy than the average individual.[40] This would be particularly useful at the time of a crime to retain images such as the perpetrator’s face, clothes, license plate, etc. These mental photographs may be comparable to presenting a real tangible photograph of the event witnessed. However, the memories of those who claim to have superior photographic memories are just as flawed as the memories of individuals who have normal mnemonic abilities.[41] This would affect the validity of testimonies from witnesses with photographic memories. Witnesses who believe that they are able to retrieve an accurate mental photograph will be much more confident in their account of the event and may influence the trial outcome.[40] Accuracy recall of such visual scenes is a controversial issue. In the past, eidetikers were believed to have extremely accurate recall for visual displays, but modern research findings might reveal a different story. Some research demonstrates that eidetic children have greater recall accuracy for visual details compared to non-eidetic children. Other researchers have failed to any advantage between the two groups. It is also hypothesized that eidetic imagery is not exactly related to memory and improve recall for visual details. If this is true, photographic memory is not particularly in the courtroom, which could explain the general failure to detect its existence in adults. [39] Eidetikers cannot produce images of each and every sensory experience on demand. Alternatively, images are created only if the stimulus contains interesting material and a coherent structure. This characteristic critically reduces possible application to criminal justice. Even though there are various thoughts and ideas regarding photographic memory, some people do have exceptional memories, which will help improve the accuracy of eyewitness identification. The frequency of eidetic imagery is low in adults and shows greatest frequency in early child development. However it is almost non-existent past the age of 7. When procedures are used to classify eidetic memory separate from the characteristic of afterimage and memory image, a small number of children are classified as true eidetikers.

See also

References

  1. ^ Loftus, E., F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(1): 9-15.
  2. ^ Wells & Bradfield, 1998; Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2000.
  3. ^ Haber, R. N., Haber, L. (2000). Experiencing, remembering and reporting events. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(4): 1057-1097. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.6.4.1057
  4. ^ a b Sporer, S, & Penrod, S. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence–accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies . Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315 - 327.
  5. ^ Deffenbacher, K, & , Initials. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 243-260.
  6. ^ a b Leippe, MR. (1980). Effects of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence . Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 261-274.
  7. ^ Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting: Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(5), 1063 – 1087.
  8. ^ Barnes, J. M., & Underwood, B.J. (1959). Fate of first-list association in transfer theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 97 – 105.
  9. ^ Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witness increases eyewitness suggestibility. Association of Psychological Science, 20(1), 66 – 72.
  10. ^ a b Loftus, E., F. (1979). Malleability of human memory. American Scientist, 67(3):312-320
  11. ^ Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11(3), 233 – 258.
  12. ^ Read, J. D.,Hammersley, R., Cross-Calvert, S., McFadzen, E. (1989). Rehersal of faces and details in action events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(4): 295-311. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2350030403
  13. ^ Wells , G, & Olsen , E. (2003). eyewitness testimony . Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
  14. ^ a b Steblay, N, & Dysart, J. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 459-473.
  15. ^ a b Bailenson, J, & Davies , A. (2008). The effects of witness viewpoint distance, angle, and choice on eyewitness accuracy in police lineups conducted in immersive virtual environments. PRESENCE, 17(3), 242-255.
  16. ^ Lindsay, R, & Semmler, C. (2008). How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Law Hum Behavior, 32, 526–535.
  17. ^ a b Amir, N., Leiner, A. S., & Bomyea, J. (2010). Implicit memory and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 34, 49 – 58.
  18. ^ Pujol, M. & Kopelman, M. D. (2003). Psychogenic Amnesia. Practical Neurology, 3, 292 – 299.
  19. ^ a b Pyszora, N. M., Barker, A. F., & Kopelman, M. D. (2003) Amnesia for criminal offenses: A study of life sentence prisoners. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 14, 475 – 490.
  20. ^ Joseph, R. (1998). Traumatic amnesia, repression, and hippocampus injury due to emotional stress, corticosteroids, and enkephalins. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29(2), 169 – 179.
  21. ^ Gilbert, A. A. E., Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied cognitive Psychology, 20(6): 723-739. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1232
  22. ^ MacLeod, M. (2002). Retrieval-induced forgetting in eyewitness memory: forgetting as a consequence of remembering. Applied cognitive Psychology, 16(2): 135-149. DOI: 10.1002/acp.782
  23. ^ Smith , S, & Vela, E. (1992). Environmental context-dependent eyewitness recognition. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 125 - 139.
  24. ^ a b c Smith, S, & Vela, E. (2001). Environmental context-dependent memory: a review and meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 203-20.
  25. ^ Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 33(5): 770-782. DOI: 10.3758/BF03193073
  26. ^ Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effect in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(5): 813-825. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.813
  27. ^ Roediger III J, H. L., Jacoby, D., McDermott, K. B. (1996). Misinformation effects in recall: creating false memories through repeated retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(2): 300-318. DOI: 1006/jmla.1996.0017
  28. ^ a b Gordon, B. N., Baker-Ward, L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2001). Children’s Testimony: A review on research of memory for past experiences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(2), 2001.
  29. ^ Goodman, G. S., & Schaaf, J. M. (1997). Over a decade of research on children’s eyewitness testimony: What have we learned? Where do we go from here?. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, S6 – S20.
  30. ^ Ma, L., & Ganea, P. A. (2010). Dealing with conflicting information: Young children’s reliance on what they see versus what they are told. Developmental Science, 13(1), 151 – 160.
  31. ^ Joseph, R. (1998). Traumatic amnesia, repression, and hippocampus injury due to emotional stress, corticosteroids, and enkephalins. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 29(2), 169 – 179.
  32. ^ Brainerd, C. and Ornstein, P. A. (1991). Children's memory for witnessed events: The develop- mental backdrop. In J. Doris (Ed.), The suggestibility of children's recollections (pp. 10- 20). Washington, DC
  33. ^ Gordon, B. N., Baker-Ward, L., & Ornstein, P. A. (2001). Children’s Testimony: A review on research of memory for past experiences. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 4(2), 2001
  34. ^ Bruce, V., Henderson, Z., Greenwood, K., Hancock, P. J. B., Burton, M., Miller, P. (1999). Verification of face identities from images captures on video. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5(4): 339-360
  35. ^ Kanwisher, N., Yovel, G. (2006). The fusiform face area: a cortical region specialized for the perception of faces. Philosophical Translations of The Royal Society, 361: 2109-2128. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2006.1934
  36. ^ Wells, G. L., Hasel, L. E. (2007). Facial composite production by eyewitnesses. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(1):6-10. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00465.x
  37. ^ Shriver, E., Young, S. G., Hugenberg, K., Bernstein, M. J., Lanter, J. (2008). Class, race, and the face: social context modulates the cross-race effect in face recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(2): 260-274. DOI: 10.1177/0146167207310455
  38. ^ Pauker, K., Ambady, N. (2009). Multiracial faces: how catergorization affects memory at the boundaries of race. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1): 69-86. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01588.x
  39. ^ a b Brady, T, & Konkle, T. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. PNAS, 103(38), 14325–14329.
  40. ^ a b Turtle, J., Want, S. C. (2008). Logic and research versus intuition and past practice as guides to gathering and evaluating eyewitness evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10):1256-2008.DOI:10.1177/0093854808321879
  41. ^ Haber, L., Haber, R. N. (1998). Criteria for judging the admissibility of eyewitness testimoney of long past events. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4(4):1135-1159.DOI:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1135
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eyewitness_memory&oldid=422352670"