Literature Elective – Legal
Psychology
Week 1 - Eyewitness memory
True and false memories in forensic contexts - Blandon-Gitlin
Witness memory: constructed and reconstructed
Memory is a constructive and reconstructive process
When a person experiences a complex event (crime), he will only acquire pieces
of information
These pieces will be combined into a memory of the event
These pieces are not enough to form a complete representation > so other
sources are needed to form the memory
The other sources can be already stored in the memory (schema's), external
sources (other witnesses, interview questions), and information generated from
thinking of the event afterward (making inferences from details encountered)
Results in a memory of combined fragments from different sources
Experiences, assumed, acquired afterward
Memories are fluid and can change overtime
The gist of information is stable (the baseline), but the verbatim (actual details)
might not be stored
Memory for traumatic events
Special memories will be most likely recalled
Accuracy of details (gist and central details) can be more reliable than
memories for everyday events
Special event memories involve similar basic cognitive processes of construction
and reconstruction
Also malleable, prone to distortion and affected by the processed of
forgetting
Misinformation effects and false memories
Witnesses can be misled by suggestive forces to report false details of
experienced events
Misleading questions
Inviting speculation
Imagination
Ex. Bijlmer incident
People falsely recalled having seen a film on TV of the moment the plane
hit the building and fire right away
This film did not exist
The recollection of such details suggest that their false memories were schema-
consistent
Adults and children can develop entire false autobiographical memories of events
Entire false memories about perpetrating a crime can be developed as well
Under strong suggestive conditions
Rich false memories: have great deal of emotion, confidently held
Once a rich false memory has developed it is difficult for observers to
identify it as false
Distorting a memory is easier than planting a new one or erasing a memory
,Factors in memory distortion and false memories
Factors that lead to distorted memories of witnessed events and fake memories
Post-event information
Retention interval
Imagination/visualization
Event plausibility
Inconsistency within and across interviews
Post-event information
External information can easily integrate into a witness's memory
Especially if the event was poorly encoded or the representation is from
a distant event where the original memory has degraded
With less information available, the new information will be accepted more
and can be integrated as a part of the original experience (especially if it
fits the current thinking of the witness)
This can be explicit, but most of the time it happens unconscious
The witness thinks about the event in a different way without
awareness
Over time, the witness may not even know the source of the information
that led to the (newer) memory
Sources of misinformation
Co-witness influence
Questioning witnesses
Visuals
Co-witness influence
Witnesses hearing each other's testimony, or discussing their memories can
strengthen the memory trace
It can also contaminate memories, especially if the original memory is
weak and when the witnesses had different viewpoints
Witnesses have opportunity to influence each other, whether accurate or not
Memory conformity: when witnesses discuss events, their memories and
accounts of the witnessed event can become similar over time
People who know each other are more likely to report information obtained from
their co-witness as it were from their own memory than witnesses not previously
acquainted
In real-life, the difference between acquaintances' and strangers' influence
on co-
witnesses is likely to be even larger, because acquaintances are more likely
to be in close communication in the days after experiencing a crime
Questioning witnesses
Method of questioning a witness affects the accuracy and completeness of
reports and subsequent memory for the events
Subtle word changes can influence the witness reports
Loftus & Palmer:
Video of cars bumping/smashed into each other
The word bumping suggests a lower speed
The "smashed" group claimed to have seen broken glass, this feature was not
included, but is consistent with the "cars-smashed-into-each-other" schema
The effect of schema consistent false memories is confined to peripheral details
and central details
, Schema consistent effects (which can be induced by the framing
questions) can powerfully influence witnesses' reports and the outcomes of
criminal cases
Repeating a question, when an answer has been given can influence the
memory of the witness
Repeating the questions gives the indication that the witness is wrong
So the witness keeps trying until he has the "correct memory"
When a witness reports no memory or cannot retrieve the detail, repeating
a question may lead the witness to go beyond what he or she actually
remembers and feel pressure to speculate or even fabricate information
about the detail
Forced confabulation effect: forcing someone to remember details they maybe do
not remember
People can develop subsequent false memories of such explicitly fabricated
details in response to unanswerable repeated questions and are likely to later
report those details as if they were true
There is a danger in repeating the same question, especially about details
the witness explicitly said she or he did not see or cannot recall
Visuals
Visuals such as photos or videos can trigger memories for past events that have
been forgotten or are otherwise unavailable via conscious recollection
Even visuals that do not depict the target event but have some relation to
it can have a beneficial effect in activation details of true memories
Ex. A picture of a window when recalling a time when one broke a window
Photographs can also have a negative effect on memory
Photographs combined with other suggestive techniques can contribute to
the creation of false memories of entire events
Retention interval
The longer the interval between an event and the time witnesses have to provide
an account the more likely the account will have significant distortions, especially
when various additional memory factors operate
When there is a delay, the effects of suggestibility are more powerful
It is easier to misinform or plant false memories for distant events than
recent events
Distant events are typically less vivid, less detailed and less accessible
than recent events
Imagination/visualization
Imagination inflation: a person's confidence that the imagined event occurred will
be amplified by simply imagining the event itself and this can lead to false beliefs
Repeatedly visualizing, thinking and speculating about an event can lead to
details imagery that enhances false beliefs
These false beliefs are the basis for developing false memories of events
Imagination and its related constructs is one of the most important factors in
memory distortion, including memories for traumatic events
Event plausibility
Event plausibility relates to the type of prior knowledge the witness has about
suggested events
Having general knowledge about how an event occurs and possessing schema-
relevant information in memory makes it more plausible to implant information
about the occurrence of such an event
Psychology
Week 1 - Eyewitness memory
True and false memories in forensic contexts - Blandon-Gitlin
Witness memory: constructed and reconstructed
Memory is a constructive and reconstructive process
When a person experiences a complex event (crime), he will only acquire pieces
of information
These pieces will be combined into a memory of the event
These pieces are not enough to form a complete representation > so other
sources are needed to form the memory
The other sources can be already stored in the memory (schema's), external
sources (other witnesses, interview questions), and information generated from
thinking of the event afterward (making inferences from details encountered)
Results in a memory of combined fragments from different sources
Experiences, assumed, acquired afterward
Memories are fluid and can change overtime
The gist of information is stable (the baseline), but the verbatim (actual details)
might not be stored
Memory for traumatic events
Special memories will be most likely recalled
Accuracy of details (gist and central details) can be more reliable than
memories for everyday events
Special event memories involve similar basic cognitive processes of construction
and reconstruction
Also malleable, prone to distortion and affected by the processed of
forgetting
Misinformation effects and false memories
Witnesses can be misled by suggestive forces to report false details of
experienced events
Misleading questions
Inviting speculation
Imagination
Ex. Bijlmer incident
People falsely recalled having seen a film on TV of the moment the plane
hit the building and fire right away
This film did not exist
The recollection of such details suggest that their false memories were schema-
consistent
Adults and children can develop entire false autobiographical memories of events
Entire false memories about perpetrating a crime can be developed as well
Under strong suggestive conditions
Rich false memories: have great deal of emotion, confidently held
Once a rich false memory has developed it is difficult for observers to
identify it as false
Distorting a memory is easier than planting a new one or erasing a memory
,Factors in memory distortion and false memories
Factors that lead to distorted memories of witnessed events and fake memories
Post-event information
Retention interval
Imagination/visualization
Event plausibility
Inconsistency within and across interviews
Post-event information
External information can easily integrate into a witness's memory
Especially if the event was poorly encoded or the representation is from
a distant event where the original memory has degraded
With less information available, the new information will be accepted more
and can be integrated as a part of the original experience (especially if it
fits the current thinking of the witness)
This can be explicit, but most of the time it happens unconscious
The witness thinks about the event in a different way without
awareness
Over time, the witness may not even know the source of the information
that led to the (newer) memory
Sources of misinformation
Co-witness influence
Questioning witnesses
Visuals
Co-witness influence
Witnesses hearing each other's testimony, or discussing their memories can
strengthen the memory trace
It can also contaminate memories, especially if the original memory is
weak and when the witnesses had different viewpoints
Witnesses have opportunity to influence each other, whether accurate or not
Memory conformity: when witnesses discuss events, their memories and
accounts of the witnessed event can become similar over time
People who know each other are more likely to report information obtained from
their co-witness as it were from their own memory than witnesses not previously
acquainted
In real-life, the difference between acquaintances' and strangers' influence
on co-
witnesses is likely to be even larger, because acquaintances are more likely
to be in close communication in the days after experiencing a crime
Questioning witnesses
Method of questioning a witness affects the accuracy and completeness of
reports and subsequent memory for the events
Subtle word changes can influence the witness reports
Loftus & Palmer:
Video of cars bumping/smashed into each other
The word bumping suggests a lower speed
The "smashed" group claimed to have seen broken glass, this feature was not
included, but is consistent with the "cars-smashed-into-each-other" schema
The effect of schema consistent false memories is confined to peripheral details
and central details
, Schema consistent effects (which can be induced by the framing
questions) can powerfully influence witnesses' reports and the outcomes of
criminal cases
Repeating a question, when an answer has been given can influence the
memory of the witness
Repeating the questions gives the indication that the witness is wrong
So the witness keeps trying until he has the "correct memory"
When a witness reports no memory or cannot retrieve the detail, repeating
a question may lead the witness to go beyond what he or she actually
remembers and feel pressure to speculate or even fabricate information
about the detail
Forced confabulation effect: forcing someone to remember details they maybe do
not remember
People can develop subsequent false memories of such explicitly fabricated
details in response to unanswerable repeated questions and are likely to later
report those details as if they were true
There is a danger in repeating the same question, especially about details
the witness explicitly said she or he did not see or cannot recall
Visuals
Visuals such as photos or videos can trigger memories for past events that have
been forgotten or are otherwise unavailable via conscious recollection
Even visuals that do not depict the target event but have some relation to
it can have a beneficial effect in activation details of true memories
Ex. A picture of a window when recalling a time when one broke a window
Photographs can also have a negative effect on memory
Photographs combined with other suggestive techniques can contribute to
the creation of false memories of entire events
Retention interval
The longer the interval between an event and the time witnesses have to provide
an account the more likely the account will have significant distortions, especially
when various additional memory factors operate
When there is a delay, the effects of suggestibility are more powerful
It is easier to misinform or plant false memories for distant events than
recent events
Distant events are typically less vivid, less detailed and less accessible
than recent events
Imagination/visualization
Imagination inflation: a person's confidence that the imagined event occurred will
be amplified by simply imagining the event itself and this can lead to false beliefs
Repeatedly visualizing, thinking and speculating about an event can lead to
details imagery that enhances false beliefs
These false beliefs are the basis for developing false memories of events
Imagination and its related constructs is one of the most important factors in
memory distortion, including memories for traumatic events
Event plausibility
Event plausibility relates to the type of prior knowledge the witness has about
suggested events
Having general knowledge about how an event occurs and possessing schema-
relevant information in memory makes it more plausible to implant information
about the occurrence of such an event
