False Presuppositions

A false memory is a fabricated or corrupt recollection of an event. Memories can be false in inconsequential and considerable ways. An inconsequential way is thinking one’s coat is hanging in the closet when it is really on a chair in the dining room. A considerable way is when there is an implication that one was sexually abused as a child. There are factors that include misinformation that interfere with the formation of a new memory, causing recollection to be mistaken or entirely false. False memories can have serious implications, such as the false identification of a suspect or false recollection during police interrogations. In regards to eyewitness testimony, the length of time between the incident and being interviewed about the event

Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder, we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully, or it can be contaminated. A case I would like to mention is the Calvin Willis Case. One night in 1982, three young girls were sleeping alone in a Shreveport, Louisiana home when a man in cowboy boots came into the house and raped the oldest girl, who was Ten years old. When police started to investigate the rape, the three girls all remembered the attack differently. One police report said the Ten year old victim didn’t see her attacker’s face. Another report which wasn’t introduced at trial said she identified Calvin Willis, who lived in the neighbourhood. The girl’s mother testified at trial that neighbours had mentioned Willis’s name when discussing who might have committed the crime. The victim testified that she was shown photos and told to pick the man without a full beard. She testified that she didn’t pick anyone, police said she picked Willis. Willis was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003, DNA testing proved Willis’ innocence and he was released. He had served nearly Twenty Two years in prison for a crime he didn’t

Elizabeth Loftus is a cognitive psychologist. I chose her because I love criminal justice and psychology. Her studies have to do with both, so she was the perfect choice. She is known for studying memory. She plays a huge role in psychology and the legal system. She conducts studies about how memory affects eyewitness testimonies. She has written more than 400 publications (McNally, 2007). She is different than other psychologists studying memory because she investigates memory for naturalistic events (McNally, 2007). She does not study memory by using a list of words or studying nonsense syllables like Ebbinghaus did. Elizabeth Loftus has published plenty of articles talking about how alibis being inconsistent does not equate to them being liars. Inconsistency does not equal accuracy. She has also written articles about how confidence does not equate to honesty.

Researcher Elizabeth Loftus, encapsulated the reliability of human memory and the notion about the inaccuracy of eyewitness accounts. She hypothesized that if eyewitnesses are asked questions with false presuppositions, the erroneous information will be incorporated into the witness’s memory and alter the memory of the witnessed event.

1) The problem of a witness recall of memory based on psychiatric intervention- the evidence of which is unreliable

“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.

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

False memory can be defined as a person believing they remember something that did not actually happen (Loftus, 1997). It is a common misconception that human memories are accurate and reliable (Poston, 2014), though many studies have revealed the reconstructive nature of memory and its vulnerability to distortion (e.g., Frenda, Nichols, & Loftus, 2011; Nash & Wade, 2008). This misconception forms an integral part of the modern justice system. Judges, attournies and juries are all prone to believe testimony from a confident eyewitness (Van Wallendael et al., 2007) and legal confessions are considered among the most compelling forms of evidence (e.g., Cutler, 2012; Kassin, Bogart, & Kerner, 2012). But what happens when these legal statements are based on false memories?

In sum, we can conclude that eyewitness memory still hold important place in investigation and prosecution process yet it is flawed. Based on research that I reviewed in this paper, there are several aspects that important to enhance eyewitness memory such as the repetition and precision-accuracy trade off. In contrast there are some factors that can threatens quality of memory such as such as avoiding co-witness situation, less focus on the confidence level to measure accuracy and delayed effect. These factors need to be prioritize to create a better environment to recall accurate information.

Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus received much criticism and praise after boldly questioning the ideas of psychology’s greats, Sigmund Freud and Plato. She believed memory is extremely unreliable as one can construct memories based on what has been suggested and based on what one’s imagination could do to fill in the missing links of a memory. She decided to run many experiments to prove that memories are fiction and not facts. She started simple with stop signs, beards, barns, and knives. She once asked “Wasn’t that traffic signal yellow” when the traffic signal was really red and the test group remembered yellow after some time after the idea that the signal color was yellow was suggested. She criticized detectives and therapists for using this

In the excerpt, Loftus describes experiments are focused on “lists of words or sentences” but do not encompass everyday memories. Unlike the information asked to recall in the current experiments of Loftus’s time, everyday memories are much more complex because of the speed at which they happen and their large visual content. And though rarely sought out, those memories are needed in certain serious situations, such as in court. According to Loftus, this is why the study of eyewitness is so important. The accounts will determine the fate of the accused and other parties. So then, due to its serious nature, eyewitness memory is a, “concern to the law,” when concerning its, “completeness, accuracy, and malleability.” In other words, the more

As the old adage goes ‘a picture is worth a thousand words’. Often for investigating officers, eye witness testimony and what is seen, is heavily relied on in order to prosecute crimes (Wells and Olsen, 2003). As such eye witness testimony and memory has become one of the most researched areas in Cognitive Psychology. What can be quite disconcerting is that from the research conducted into this

The also wanted to find out if children are aware of the linguistic expectations they are presented with question. If right, Dale, Loftus, and Rathbun would show that child testimonies could be inaccurate and unreliable. Previous studies discussed by Dale, Loftus, and Rathbun (1978) revealed that adults and children can be influenced by the way a question is formed. Using definite articles and indefinite articles researchers demonstrated that the participants would inaccurately recall an

The study was conducted to show how altering certain words can influence to the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. The study consisted of two experiments. The first was done on 45 participants who were split into groups of varying sizes and they were shown seven films. In the first study, the independent variable was the verb used in the critical question. These were either, 'hit ', 'bumped ', 'smashed ', 'contacted ' and 'collided '. And the dependent variable was the speed estimation the participant gave. Loftus and Palmer found that the verb 'smashed ' lead to a higher estimated speed when compared to 'contacted '. Their findings were significant at p < 00.5 level. The second experiment was conducted to help the

The participants are asked an argument-focused question, a predicate focused question, and a sentence-focused question while watching a clip. The equivalent video clips included both questions responding to intransitive and transitive events. There were six experimental conditions. Each child received three trials on every one condition. The video clips showed nine transitive and nine intransitive events. The study took place in the children 's preschool classroom. The experimenter asked the child if they wanted to watch video. The child and the experimenter watched the video. After the video ended, the child and the researcher played with toys. Then the experimenter asked the child if they wanted to watch the video clips for a second time, but this time they told the child they were going to ask questions about the clips. Each time a new clip commenced the experimenter asked the child a question. If the child did not respond to the question, the experimenter repeated the question until the child gave a response. The experimenter responded to the child by either saying “wow, that sounds fun”, “I wish I could see that too”, or “what a great film”. This technique repeats for the rest of the participants. Finally, the children 's answers are