Abstract
This paper explores various published articles which depict research results from studies conducted on the effects of misinformation on eyewitness testimony. Misinformation is “false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive” (Oxforddictionaries.com). With the use of misinformation it may be possible to mislead witnesses allowing them to present false information. This papers examines articles from researchers such as Blank, Ost, Davies, Jones, Lambert and Salmon (2013), Loftus (2005), Chrobak and Zaragoza (2013), and Eakin, Schreiber and Sergeant-Marshall (2003) in relation to other studies conducted in order to determine how misinformation is introduced, possible reasons the effect occurs, and suggestions on how to reduce its effects.
The Misinformation Effect and the Effects it has on Eyewitness Testimony
There is a wide misconception that a person’s long-term memory actually records experiences exactly as they happened. However, memories and events we have are very malleable and can be altered and/or molded. It is proven fact that our long-term memory is susceptible to errors. The impreciseness in a person’s memory can further be altered with the misinformation effect. The misinformation effect transpires when mislead information is presented to someone after they have experienced the event.
Misinformation can have unfavorable consequences in investigations and trials. “The fallibility of eyewitness memory is a crucial problem in the administration of justice, and documented cases of false convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimony abound” (Zaragoza, Payment, Ackil, Drivdahl & Beck, 2001, p. 473). Over the past few decade numerous studies have been conducted centering on the various facets and implications of the misinformation effect and how it affects eyewitness testimony. Through the introduction of misinformation to someone’s thoughts and observations, they can easily be manipulated, leading them to dictate false or inaccurate information. Misinformation may be presented in many ways to witnesses such as I nterviewing, cross-examination, and narratives. This paper examines research that has been conducted from various authors in regards to how misinformation is introduced, possible reasons the effect occurs, and suggestions on how to reduce its effects as well as propose where additional research may be conducted to further understand this phenomenon.
It has long since been discovered that the misinformation effect exists and can have negative effects when it comes to eyewitness testimony. In 2002, 110 inmates were released from prison due DNA exonerations making them not guilty. Out of the 110, eleven were on death row. In the majority of these cases the individuals were convicted largely on the testimony of eyewitnesses.
Numerous studies have been conducted over the past forty-five years in order to help explain this phenomenon and how it occurs. Each study has built upon the next. One of the key components of this effect is having misinformation introduced to someone. There are many avenues that misinformation may be presented to a person. Misinformation can be presented both directly (face-to-face) or indirectly (written narratives, questionnaires, etc.). Eyewitness events are not an isolated experiences, but instead are shadowed by a series of post-experiences. These post experiences can include things such as interactions with other eyewitnesses, media coverage, or conversations with family and friends. Forensic interviewing is another post event experience that can affect the misinformation phenomenon. These allow for eyewitnesses exposure to new and potentially misleading information.
In a study conducted by Blank et al. (2013) it was found that eyewitnesses presented misinformation to a lesser extent when they were exposed to it directly through face-to-face interactions.. They noted that this may be due to the trustworthiness of those presenting the information as well as other influences. This was further backed up by research conducted by Rivardo, Rutledge, Chelecki, Stayer, Quarles, and Kline, (2013). Rivardo et al. studied how collaboration of witnesses can affect both the accuracy and inaccuracy of information. Through their studies they determined that influences from others such as normative influences (weighing the cost of disagreeing with the costs of being wrong) and informational influences (weighing the probability of the other person being correct with the probability of oneself being correct) from other individuals can have an effect on misinformation reported. Blank et al. (2013) hypothesized the more trusting the presenter is, the more likely it would be for eyewitnesses to present the false information.
Valentine and Maras (2011) further studied how the manner in which one receives misinformation affects the level in which they present false or inaccurate information. Cross-examination is an important part of all court cases. They focused largely on the different aspects of questioning and suggestibility. It was found that through certain techniques and manipulations such as the way a questions was formatted or through different word plays, interviewers could cause confusion which resulted in eyewitnesses changing their answers or depicting misinformation. According to their research, the manner in which the questioning occurs also has an effect on the presentation of misinformation. It was found that more aggressive interviewing led to a higher report of misinformation. They also discovered through the use of leading questions they could achieve the reporting of false information even more. Valentine and Maras’s research was fundamental in the placement of laws restricting leading questions in the court room.
The way memories are formed has been at the center of psychological research for nearly as long as psychology has been around. Zaragoza, Payment, Ackil, Drivdahl, and Beck (2001) provided further evidence of suggestibility of eyewitnesses stating “social scientists and legal practitioners have long recognized that suggestive forensic (or therapeutic) interview practices are a major cause of inaccuracies in eyewitness memory” (Zaragoza et al., 2001). They further determined that confabulation plays a large role in the misinformation effect. By forcing confabulations from individuals interviewers can effectively transmit false information and create false memories. Confirmation on these confabulations further reinforces them making these false memories more prevalent in eyewitness’s minds. These findings were furthered by the studies on forced confabulations by Chrobak and Zaragoza (2013) which found that eventually eyewitnesses believe the memories were their own rather than a confabulation placed in their head.
As mentioned before the study of memory has been at the forefront of psychological research for decades. Due to the complexity of the human mind, exactly how memories are formed and stored is unknown. More important to this topic, how memories are retrieved is also unknown. One suggestion on why the misinformation effect is so prominent is due to retrieval blocking cue incrementing. Retrieval blocking in this instance refers to the degree in which access to the original information is reduced due to accessing the misinformation. According to Eakin, Schreiber and Sergent-Marshall (2003), “when a representation is retrieved from memory, the strength of association between the representation, the retrieval cue, and retrieval context increases” (Eakin, Schreiber & Sergent-Marshall, 2003, p. 813). When someone is presented with the same or similar cue, it is likely that the same memory will be retrieved again. When retrieval conditions support accessibility to the misleading information, the misinformation effect is higher. The theory of retrieval blocking also aligns with the findings that in general, the misinformation effect is greater when eyewitnesses are exposed to misleading information after the original information (Eakin et al., 2003, p. 822).
Time is considered another large contributor to the misinformation effect. As suggested by Loftus (2005). The length of time between an experienced event and relaying information may cause deterioration memory leading one to present false or inaccurate information. Age may also be a contributing factor. Studies have shown that young children and elderly are more susceptible to the misinformation effect. This can be contributed to cognitive resources as attentional resources may be limited in the young and elderly. Is also suggested that being self-monitored and having certain personality traits such as being empathetic and absorption may make one more susceptible to this phenomenon. Morgan, Southwich, Steffian, Hazlett and Loftus (2012) proved that highly stressful events also increase the misinformation effect. Morgan et al. (2012) conducted a study at a U.S. Navy Survival School training during a mock POW camp. During their study military members were subject to highly stressful events and intense interrogations during which they were presented with false information about their interrogators. Even amongst trained military personnel they were able to elicit large quantities of misinformation. For example “approximately 50% of participants, when presented a target-absent eyewitness array and asked to identify their interrogator, gave false positive identifications” (Morgan et al., 2012). It was also found that when presented at the group level, misinformation had a larger effect.
Many authors of these studies offer up suggestions on how to reduce the misinformation effect. Some of these include giving warnings that misinformation may be received, asking for the source of the memories, or using the logic of opposition where participants are asked to ignore any information they may be subjected to after the original event. However, in a real world scenario, it is nearly impossible to evade coming into contact with external sources (e.g. Police, family, other eyewitnesses, and the media) of misinformation, not to mention the internal cognitive errors the mind may make.
It is still unknown if the human mind stores memories indefinitely or if it replaces them after time. Likewise it is unknown for sure whether false memories replace original memories or if they can coexist. In essence the coexistence theory of false memory suggests that both memories can be present in the brain but due to certain cognitive mechanisms such as suppression or inhibition, the true memory is made inaccessible. To combat misinformation in a real world scenario some research conducted (Gordon and Shapiro, 2012) suggests that these memories, with priming, the original memory can be activated, which helps reduce the misinformation effect. Through the use of associative priming it was shown that activation and retrieval of original memories is possible.
Another theory in reducing the misinformation effect is the plurality option. According to an article written by Luna and Martin-Luengo (2012), there are two options that can help reduce misinformation and increase report accuracy, these are the report option and the gain-size option. With the report option individuals have the ability to report or withhold answers based on how they view the quality of their memory is. The gain-size option allows individuals to report more broadly rather than specific details. For example they can say the offender was between 180lbs and 200lbs instead of pinpointing a weight such as saying the offender was 180lbs. Allowing these decisions has been shown to increase accuracy. Luna and Martin-Luengo took the gain-size option and renamed it the plurality option. This option allows an individual to answer a question with options rather than a specific answer. For example the question “What was the weapon used?” and answers could include “A. a revolver, a taser, or a pistol.” By allowing individuals to answer more generally rather than specifically stating it was a revolver, the accuracy increased. While these options increase accuracy, they also decrease informativeness, which is also important in an investigation. Luna and Martin-Luengo added in the suggestion that this method be used when testimonies may be of poor quality, contaminated, or occurring after a long length of time.
The importance of the misinformation effect and the results it may lead to is essential to understand in order to prevent inaccuracies in the criminal justice system. There is still much study needed in the area of the misinformation effect. Through the studies conducted throughout the years it is clear that the presentation of misinformation, suggestibility, and confabulation promote the likelihood that false or inaccurate information may be reported. There is still a lot to discover in regards to how we receive, encode, and retrieve memories which makes fully understanding the misinformation effect difficult. Further research on the activation and priming of memories may allow for better accuracy in memory. This phenomenon needs to be studied in more real world scenarios to better account for all the types of misinformation one may be subjected to. Loftus (2005), Gordon and Shapiro (2012), and Luna and Martin-Luengo (2012) all offered potential solutions in order to help reduce the effects of this phenomenon however, it is clear that more research in this area is necessary. These articles along with others have begun to lay the foundation for what is sure to be a widely researched topic.
References
Blank, H., Ost, J., Davies, J., Jones, G., Lambert, K., & Salmon, K. (2013). Comparing the influence of directly vs. indirectly encountered post-event misinformation on eyewitness remembering. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 635-641. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/science/article/pii/S0001691813002278#
Chrobak, Q. M., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2013). When forced fabrications become truth: Causal explanations and false memory development. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 827-844. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030093
Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(5), 813-825. Retrieved from doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.5.813
Gordon, L. T., & Shapiro, A. M. (2012). Priming correct information reduces the misinformation effect. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 717-726. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1470088563?accountid=34899
Loftus, E. (2005). Planting Misinformation In The Human Mind: A 30-year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory. Learning & Memory, (12), 361-366. Retrieved from http://learnmem.cshlp.org/content/12/4/361.full
Luna, K. B., Martin-Luengo, B. (2012). Improving the Accuracy of Eyewitnesses in the Presence of Misinformation with the Plurality Option. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 687-693. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=7d33035e-124b-4833-9e2b-a392a4f693c8%40sessionmgr4005&vid=2&hid=4109
Morgan, C., Southwich, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G., & Loftus, E. (2012). Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(1), 11-17. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/science/article/pii/S016025271200088X
Oxforddictionaries.com. (n.d.). Definition of misinformation in English. Retrieved from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/misinformation
Rivardo, M. G., Rutledge, A. T., Chelecki, C., Stayer, B. E., Quarles, M., & Kline, A. (2013). Collaborative recall of eyewitness event increases misinformation effect at 1Week. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(3), 495-512. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1467525296?accountid=34899
Valentine, T., & Maras, K. (2011). The effect of cross-examination on the accuracy of adult eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 554-561. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=a6c5ec0f-21f2-4910-985e-ab09e33c77fc@sessionmgr115&vid=0&hid=105
Zaragoza, M. S., Payment, K. E., Ackil, J. K., Drivdahl, S. B., & Beck, M. (2001). Interviewing Witnesses: Forced Confabulation and Confirmatory Feedback Increase False Memories. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 12(6), 473-477. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=b39f705b-33df-4adfb5d301e5607c442f%40sessionmgr4001&crlhashurl=login.aspx%253fdirect%253dtrue%2526scope%253dsite%2526db%253ds3h%2526AN%253d5408295%2526msid%253d427807806&hid=4109&vid=0&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=5408295&db=s3h
Petlife33
m3.docx
0
