Analysis Of Eyewitness Testimony

Elizabeth Loftus, is a psychologist, mainly concerned with how subsequent information can affect an eyewitness’s testimony. Loftus has focused on misleading information in both the difference in wording of questions and how these questions can influence eyewitness testimony. This research is important because frequently, eyewitness testimony is a crucial element in criminal proceedings. Throughout Loftus’s career she has found a witness’s memory is highly flexible and subject to being influenced. The classic study by Loftus and Palmer (1974), illustrates that eyewitness testimony can be influenced by leading questions and ultimately proved unreliable.

It must be noted that eyewitness testimony is rarely given immediately after the traumatic

event, but rather after considerable time, sometimes hours have elapsed after the event is observed by the witness before a statement is made. Other intervening factors, statements and occurrences may have been observed by the witness. At the same time, the witness is asked questions about related events, such as lighting, weather, surfaces and other similar factors that can result in influencing eyewitness testimony. The witness can also be asked questions about the suspect that increase the risk of a false identification, when the witness participates in a line up.
Loftus and Palmer tested whether using different language in a question could alter eyewitness testimony. They wanted to show leading questions have an effect, as the witness’s account could be further molded by certain words and cues within the question. The first experiment asked participants to estimate speeds of vehicles involved in a collision. They used seven different films of traffic accidents, some lasting 5 seconds and others up to 30 seconds of footage. After viewing the film participants were then asked to describe what they saw, as if, they were eyewitnesses. Next they were asked specific questions. For instance, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit/collided/bumped/contacted/smashed/ each other. Making the independent value the specific wording of the question and the dependent value the speed recounted.
The study found the estimated speed was affected by the verb used in the question. It was apparent the participants of this study found the verb to imply information with regards to the collision, which directly altered the participant’s memory of the accident. Particularly, those asked with the verb “smashed” thought the cars were going faster than those questioned with the word “hit”. The study found “smashed” gave the highest speed, followed by “collided”, “bumped”, “hit” and finally “contacted”. Even descriptive words such as accident can influence a witness’ testimony. Accident implies the situation was unavoidable, while collision suggests someone was at fault. Other factors such as the witness’s perception of fault can influence memories. In collisions involving a traffic light many witnesses will claim the light was red, based on their perception of who was at fault, even though other evidence brings that claim into question.
Loftus and Zanni then published the results of a similar study the following year. College students were again shown a film of an accident. Afterward, one group was asked to estimate how fast the car was going “along the country road.” Another was asked to estimate the car’s speed when it “passed the barn” along the country road. A week later, all the students were asked if they had seen a barn in the film clip. About 17% of the students who had been asked the “passed the barn” question reported seeing a barn (Loftus & Zanni, 1975). Only 3% of the other group recalled a barn (Loftus & Zanni, 1975). Yet there was no barn in the film. Again, a simple suggestion of a fact had a strong effect on memory which led to faulty recollections. The results show the verb used had affected the witness’s statements about the speed of the collision. The adding of non-existent details evidences the power of suggestion and how it can impact memory. Loftus’s study was one of the first studies to question how reliable witness statements can be, especially when each witness has their own way of describing events. Furthermore, each witness has their own meaning attached to their narration.
Loftus’s research caused an uproar in the criminal justice field. With the new found knowledge that a witness or victim’s memory of crime could be malleable, a growing desire developed to focus on objective evidence that could support or disprove witness testimony. Further this research changed how the system dealt with investigations, especially with child victims. In Ceci & Bruck’s (1993) article, “Suggestibility of the Child Witness” examines further the suggestibility of a child’s testimony in an effort to determine if a child can be a credible witness. Until recent years, children under the age of 7 years old in some states and 5 years old in others were deemed incompetent to testify in a court proceeding. This had been based on a historical belief that a child’s cognitive skills were not sufficiently developed to understand the meaning of telling the truth. With the concern about crimes against children, very young children are now being permitted to testify in court. In recent years, courts have developed practices such as video testimony and closed court testimony to attempt to minimize the trauma of testifying and to increase a child witness’ ability to testify about events.
The scholars were motivated by practical concerns; as young children are increasingly called to testify particularly in sexual abuse cases. With the broadest use of suggestibility, the degree to which children’s encoding, storage, retrieval, and reporting of events can be influenced by an array of social and psychological factors (Ceci & Bruck, 1993). For example, young children may desire to please the adults interviewing them, by telling them what they believe the adult wanted to hear and then believing it as truth. On the other spectrum the narrow definition of suggestibility can only be unconscious. Meaning interfering information is unwittingly incorporated into memory, resulting from the provision of information after an event rather than preceding, continuing suggestibility is memory-based, not a social phenomenon (Ceci & Bruck, 1993). The article adopts the broader definition of suggestibility, as they believe it is possible to accept new information while being fully aware of its divergence from what was originally perceived event.
To continue with child witnesses, Brown et al. (2013) conducted a study with 128 children aged 5 to 7 years old and were interviewed using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Investigative Interview Protocol about an event presented 4 to 6 weeks earlier. The first procedure of the experiment was having a staged event that lasted 15 minutes. One research assistant met the child in their classes and took them to the second researcher staged as a photographer. Then the researcher had the child read a book about pirates before dressing them in a pirate costume. When in costume the child was then photographed. A third researcher then entered the room and briefly argued with the photographer about access to equipment, the researches then resolved the conflict. The costumes were then removed from the child and then the child took a photo of the photographer. The teachers and parents of the children were asked not to discuss the experiment. Four to six weeks later the children were then taken in for an interview of the event. The participants were prepared for the investigation of the event using two styles, invitational or directive prompts. For invitational prompt the children would include using encouraging words to gain further reporting. This incited more descriptive responses than using directive prompts without reducing accuracy. It was found the children were more responsive when they had been prepared and given times to practice describing events. Children encountered errors when they received preparation for recalling an event but received the directive style with yes or no questions. These children were the least accurate when questioned about the false event first (Brown et al. 2013). This study eludes that children can be more accurate in recalling events than the other studies noted by Ceci & Bruck (1993) suggest. However, Brown et al. (2013) continues that the findings must be given context, as this study the accuracy observed is likely due to the questions that were coded as suggestive. In reflection Brown et al. (2013) since reseachers were aware of the target event the child was then prompted for further details, while other studies did not consider suggestive, but rather leading. For instance the interviewers would state, “So you told me about when you dressed as a pirate, now what other things did the costume have?” (Brown et al. 2013). In most of the other studies this would have been seen as cued recall.
Loftus’s experiment with showing short films to adults and giving false recognitions to questions with definite answers, was later replicated, with children being the participants. The same pattern was found for 4 and 5 year olds (Dale, Loftus, & Rathbun, 1978). The use of a definite article in questions produced more answers to questions about non-depicted events. It was found young children seem to have the same understanding of this precise language indicator as adults have. For example, participants were asked “did you see the car?” versus “did you see a car?” The definite article assumes the participants saw any car, which was proven in the study to influence the child’s answer (Dale, Loftus, & Rathbun, 1978). It is important to note the change in language used in a question can alter the child’s ability to understand what the adult is asking. Many children being asked to make a statement feel as though they need to appease the adult with the correct answer.
There are numerous studies of child victims and how to effectively investigate, without being too suggestive.

This is what sparked the use of anatomical dolls in cases of sexual abuse with children. Multiple interviews with children and other witnesses with disabilities can also result in suggestive testimony. The first interviewer may have communicated suggestions to the child which are then repeated as truth in the subsequent testimony. In the past an investigation of child abuse might have the victim interviewed by a detective, a child protective services caseworker, a physician and a prosecutor. When the research indicated a problem with suggestive interviewing, a concern began to develop that the child was parroting to the later interviewers what they believed the prior interviewers desired to hear. This has led to the development of family advocacy centers where a child is interviewed a single time by a specialist and the information provided to appropriate

agencies.
In De Puiseau, Aßfalg, Erdfelder, & Bernstein, (2012) study wanted to explore how eyewitnesses often report certain details of the crime incorrectly, as there tends to be more than one eyewitness, the reports frequently conflict.

This study was conducted on 30 students, having two versions of film depicting a quarrel between a man and woman passing each other on the street. The only variations of the film was the angle captured from the street camera and one participant watched the video for seven minutes while the other only watched two minutes. Then each participant had a few moments to converse about the events seen. De Puiseau et al. (2012) employed using a method based on the cultural consensus theory, which would account for the differences in each eyewitness’s knowledge. Then each participant had 110 recognition questions ranging topics included crime scene, perpetrator, victim, action, and general information. It was found among all 30 participants answered correctly 83.63% of the 110 item-questionnaire (De Puiseau, et al., 2012). The study also compared the group context model (GCM) to the majority rule, and it was found that the GCM was much higher in correctly estimating the answers (De Puiseau, et al, 2012). This study is important to note as in each crime it is expected that there is at least four eyewitnesses, and most likely when one does not understand the events or wants assurance what they saw, they confer with the others. In extreme cases like the

assassination of President Kennedy, there was more than 500 eyewitnesses and with that has numerous accounts of where it was thought the shooter was, however, all accounts differ. Since there are examples of large audiences of crime, there are many areas in which the memory and account of what happened can be distorted.
The study conducted by Patihis and Loftus (2016) is the first to investigate adults’ tendency to report memories of viewing footage that took place when they were children. This study focus was on Flight 93, the plane crash in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001. Paithis and Loftus (2015) found that in a computer questionnaire, 33% indicated a false memory with at least one false detail. In a more detailed face-to-face interview, only 13% of the group described a detailed false memory. Familiarity with the news story, fantasy proneness, alcohol use, and frequency of negative emotions after 9/11 were all associated with a persistent false memory (Patihis & Loftus 2016). Participants who had received prior suggestion were more likely to later report false memories in the later interview. The main finding of this study was later media attention may depict facts in a misleading manner or report misleading information which can lead to witnesses parroting the misleading facts and information.