.png)
In Neil v. Biggers (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there are at least five variables required to determine the accuracy of eyewitnesses. The first involves an eyewitness’s degree of certainty, stating that eyewitnesses must be certain about what they have witnessed. The second factor is whether the witness even had the capacity to view the event. Next is the attention given to the incident, suggesting that a fleeting glance is not sufficient. Fourth, they affirmed that eyewitnesses need to have quality descriptions of the occurrence. Lastly, there must not be a large gap of time between the event and its reporting.[1] Unfortunately, these guidelines are not adequate enough to establish the accuracy of an eyewitness’s testimony.
As of February 6, 2022, the Innocence Project has exonerated 237 persons where almost two-thirds (63%) were wrongfully convicted due to faulty eyewitness testimony.[2] As Gary Wells and Elizabeth Loftus remark, “Mistaken eyewitnesses account for more convictions of innocent persons than all other causes combined.”[3] These numbers are not surprising considering there exist numerous psychological factors that notoriously affect a person’s perception and memory of an event.[4] In fact, the consensus among surveyed experts on eyewitness testimony (by at least two-thirds majority) indicates that the following psychological variables impair the accuracy of an eyewitness’s statement:[5]
the introduction of threatening objects, which worsens a person’s capacity to observe other pertinent details (“weapon focus”);
the length of time a witness observes an event where less time equates to less accuracy;
the rate of memory loss, which is highest immediately after an event (“forgetting curve”);
the degree of witness confidence, which is not a reliable predictor of accuracy since outside factors can alter a person’s assurance levels (“confidence malleability”);
the wording of interview questions, which can adversely affect an eyewitness’s memory;
the initial expectations of an eyewitness, which affect how they perceive events;
the accuracy of childhood memories, which is regularly mistaken or partially distorted and is typically less error-free than adults (being more vulnerable to interviewer suggestibility, peer pressure, and social influences);
and the habitual occurrence of “postevent information,” where recollections often reflect material acquired only after the incident has occurred, which indicates that people cannot reliably discriminate between true and false memories.
With these variables in mind, investigators first need to consider the potential for memory bias when attempting to interview and, subsequently, corroborate paranormal claims.
Coming Soon to GCRR Press!
Biased Memories
There are three stages to memory: encoding, storage, and retrieval. Encoding is the process of transforming external stimuli into mental representations. However, exactly what aspects of an event become encoded depends on how much attention and focus is given to different details. This attention and focus similarly depends on the lucidity and salience of the stimuli at the time of encoding. Specifically, memorable details are those that stand out as unique or distinctive to the observer within the surrounding context and their preceding familiarity with the environment. Likewise, observers are more likely to remember details that are relevant or significant to them personally.[6] Indeed, incidents that have greater significance for an eyewitness are likely to be more accurate than insignificant events, though memory distortion is most prominent if the incident was unpleasant or displeasing to the observer.[7]
Not surprisingly, people’s personal interests and personalities will dictate which details they interpret as significant and salient. A person’s culture, past experiences, preconceptions, prejudices, and preferences often dictate how people experience, remember, and interpret surprising events.[8]
Eyewitness testimony itself constitutes “autobiographical memory,” meaning its sole source of information is the subjective perception of the individual who experiences and recalls past events. Its three primary components are verbal narrative, imagery, and emotion. Investigators need to realize that autobiographical memories assist people in making sense of the world and reflect how they have intuitively interpreted past events. Expectedly, people regularly recall and interpret details selectively in order to justify or rationalize their already held beliefs about reality. Thus, memory recall often appears in story form, which eyewitnesses then mold in order to captivate their audience and validate their actions and beliefs. The problem is that frequent retellings of a story tend to result in altering, adding, or omitting past details, which then become a solidified part of the autobiographical memory in future retellings.[9]
Finally, it is important to recognize that people are not just poor eyewitnesses, but they are also consistently inaccurate earwitnesses, meaning people often provide inaccurate testimonies about conversations, words spoken, and intended meanings. Like other remembrances, conversational memory is vulnerable to the same biases and schema-driven errors as other memories.[10] In addition to the inherent bias of memory recall, investigators also need to be aware of other variables that can inadvertently distort a person’s testimony.
-To be Continued in Part V-
Citations
[1] Lauren O’Neill Shermer, Karen C. Rose, and Ashley Hoffman, “Perceptions and Credibility: Understanding the Nuances of Eyewitness Testimony,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27, no. 2 (May 2011): 187; R. Barry Ruback and Martin S. Greenberg, “Crime Victims as Witnesses: Their Accuracy and Credibility,” Victimology: An International Journal 10, no. 1 (1985): 419; Smalarz and Wells, “Eyewitness Certainty,” 162‒63. [2] See https://innocenceproject.org/exonerations-data/. [3] Gary L. Wells and Elizabeth F. Loftus, “Eyewitness Memory for People and Events,” in Handbook of Psychology, ed. Alan M. Goldstein and Irving B. Weiner, vol. 11, Forensic Psychology (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2003), 149. [4] These factors can be as simple as the age, gender, stereotype expectancies, and perceived distinctiveness of the people involved (see Shermer, Rose, and Hoffman, “Perceptions and Credibility,” 186). Even a person being introverted makes them more susceptible to false memory suggestion, especially when coupled with an extroverted interviewer (Stephen Porter et al., “Negotiating False Memories: Interviewer and Rememberer Characteristics Relate to Memory Distortion,” Psychological Science 11, no. 6 [November 2000]: 507‒10). [5] See Saul M. Kassin et al., “On the ‘General Acceptance’ of Eyewitness Testimony Research: A New Survey of the Experts,” American Psychologist 56, no. 5 (May 2001): 405‒16. [6] See Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2017), 63‒91. [7] Richard E. Nisbett and Lee Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1980), 45; Redman, “How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses?,” 183. Cf. Ruback and Greenberg, “Crime Victims as Witnesses,” 410‒11. [8]Redman, “How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses?,” 182‒83; Duke, Lee, and Pager, “A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words,” 29‒30; Ruback and Greenberg, “Crime Victims as Witnesses,” 411‒12. [9] Redman, “How Accurate Are Eyewitnesses?,” 180, 186, 189. [10] See the numerous studies in Duke, Lee, and Pager, “A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words,” 1‒52.
