Eyewitness Memory Research Paper

Eyewitness testimonies are based on a person’s ability to recall what took place accurately. Memory research has proven that a person’s memory is not a recording but it is reconstructive. Loftus and Palmer’s study set out to prove that the memory could be reconstructed through the use of language.

In the late 19th-century research on eyewitness, testimony memory began, psychologists had been studying memory, and the findings became useful for forensic psychology and law. A central issue with studying eyewitness memory and testimony is the ecological validity of lab studies. There are relatively few ‘real world’ eyewitness memory studies, and that causes problems for determining the generalizability of findings in eyewitness memory. Coined by Wells (1978) estimator variables are present at the time of a crime and cannot be changed (i.e. witness characteristics and the type of offence) and system variables are factors that can be manipulated to affect eyewitness accuracy (i.e. line-up procedures and interview types). The system variables

Eyewitness testimonies can be the reason why a person is convicted for an offence they may or may not have committed. Psychological research shows that eyewitness testimony is not always accurate and the memory can be altered. Elizabeth Loftus is a psychological researcher that studies the mind and false memories. Studies and experiments by Elizabeth Loftus, Florida Atlantic University psychologists and many other psychologists provide evidence that supports the theory that memories can be altered and therefore eyewitness testimonies are not always accurate.

There are many factors to consider when psychologists and scientists are trying to figure out reliability of eyewitness testimony. The ability to recall or

Eyewitness Identification may be more reliable than we believe, if they are handled and assessed correctly. Eyewitness testimonies are often used by law enforcement officers to identify suspects and play a huge role in getting convictions. If witnesses identify the wrong person, an innocent man could be punished for something they had no involvement in. There are many theories to explain why witnesses may identify the wrong person as the perpetrator of a crime. The different ways we retrieve memories affects what we remember. Other theories have to deal with how lineups or photo arrays are displayed to the witness and the effect they have on the result. All of the different theories of how our memories can be influenced, cause people to argue

“Wrongfully convicted at age 25, Calvin Johnson received a life sentence for the rape of a Georgia woman after four different women identified him. Exonerated in 1999, he walked out of prison a 41-year old man. The true rapist has never been found, (The Justice Project).” Eyewitness testimony is highly relied on by judges, but it can not always be trusted. Approximately 48% of wrong convictions are because of mistaken identity by eyewitnesses (The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony). After we discovered this information, we became curious as to whether in a testimony, the eyewitness’ memory is more reliable after a short period of time or after a longer period of time? According to previous experiments, eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Likely, we want to know if a testimony that is given two to three hours after a crime has taken place is more reliable than a testimony given after a longer period of time.

memory following an accident, crime, or other significant event, and the types of errors that are

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has been particularly concerned with how subsequent information can affect an eyewitness’s account of an event. The fact the eyewitness testimony can be unreliable and influenced by leading questions is illustrated by the psychology study by Loftus and Palmer (1974). The aim of the study was to test their hypothesis that the language used in eyewitness testimony can alter memory. To test this, Loftus and Palmer asked people to estimate the speed of motor vehicles using different forms of questions.

The memory of an eyewitness has always been an endless dispute throughout the narration of its existence. The word of an individual holds the most substance; it’s the only real thing of value that person hold, having a witness of a crime is a criminal’s vilest nightmare. There is a phrase that may have been heard in movies and reality, ‘eyewitness do not live too long.’ This phrase has range amongst people revealing the reputation of eye witnessing for the majority and jury. All evidence used to convict a person has to go through a vigilant examination process especially the testimony of an eyewitness. So much emphasis is put on a truthful and accurate testimony because there has been a false testimony, which cause consequences and complications. Criminal justice systems should demand their district to notice there is an occurrence of bad witness memory, because the brain will juggle and play games with the hauler. Predominantly, the mix up happens because of the perception particularities the individuals mind has mad up and the original information. Memory is simply the development of perception, how the brain process what is seen and reproduces it later. Since there is a chance that the reproduction of once memory will be wrong that makes it essential to the individual does not damage the facts. This accentuates the stress on the knowledge of the eyewitness well-being

A lawyer may use the research that shows eye witness’s memory for details of crimes contains significant errors when evaluating their testimonies to show that they may be confused or lying. Eye witnesses are unreliable because when they are held under pressure they tend to forget the important details. “When a criminal perpetrator displays a knife or gun, a witness pays less attention to other details of the crime making them less likely to recall what actually occurred.” (pg. 223) This means the lawyer could state that the eye witness was too distracted by the danger of their life rather than watching what actually happened. “One reason eyewitnesses are prone to memory-related errors is that the specific wording of question posed to them by

The Retrieval-induced Forgetting in an Eyewitness Paradigm article is based on an experiment done to test retrieval- induced forgetting. Even though research was done on this topic before, the authors took it one step forward to either prove or deny the theory of retrieval-induced forgetting. They wanted to see if repeated questioning would impact a witnesses’ ability to recall certain events or even specific details. This was done by showing subjects different slides of the aftermath of theft. They were then asked to recall selected details of what they saw several different times. Previous experiments have proven that there are both positive and negative effects to addressing

Eyewitness testimony is defined as, “an area of research that investigates the accuracy of memory following an accident, crime, or other significant event, and the types of errors that are commonly made in such situations.” Much emphasis is placed on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony as often-inaccurate eyewitness testimony can have serious consequences leading to wrong convictions. Eyewitness testimony is a powerful tool within any field, particularly that of justice, as it is a readily accepted form of evidence that allows for convictions. However, Tests conducted by Loftus have shown an enormous swing from a non-guilty verdict, to guilty within the same case, simply through the introduction

‘The language used in eyewitness testimony can alter an individual’s memory’, the Loftus and Palmer study was carried out to test that hypothesis. Two experiments were carried out within the study. The study had a quasi-experimental design. Experiment one involved forty-five students participates, the participants were shown various films of automobile accidents, after the participants viewed the films they were questioned about what they have just seen. A number of questions specific to the automobile accident were presented in a questionnaire to the participants, however the question contained a paramount question of interest, this being

Eyewitness testimony is a significant part of forensic psychology because juries almost always tend to pay attention to testimony given by a witness and they usually believe that this account comes from a reliable source. What they do not know is that memory is highly malleable and can be very inaccurate regardless of the person that is giving his/her account. In order to show the significance of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the average person must know the factors that play a part to memory and how it works in concert to amount to the inaccurate recollections of

I focused on the distance of sight being an issue for an eyewitness, but, I believe memory is also a big factor as well. Have you ever played any memory games online? They will have you look at a picture for approximately 20 seconds or so and then ask you questions about what you have seen in that picture. Such as, color of a shirt, were there any animals, color of hair, etc. It is not easy to answer them. And, just think, doing the memory game you are not under any stress that you would feel when you are an eyewitness of a