Based on Eye Witness Testimony, Case Study Example

Leading Question Loftus and Palmer (1974): Based on Eye Witness Testimony

Abstract

This is based on a study conducted by Loftus and Palmer in trying to affirm that what happens at any given time or a specific event witnessed by a person is not perfectly stored by the memory. The argument is based on the fact that memory is subject to distortions and/ or alterations by the contemporary activities that we perform[1]. Psychologically, the argument has close association to the earlier studies done by psychologists on memory and storage of information.

A good example that can be used to back up this study is the level at which our memory is capable of storing and retrieving information based on numerical values. It becomes difficult to retrieve the information from our past events. Even though there are those that we can easily recall, some key information, especially the more specific details may hardly be retrieved. There are other similar tests based on eyewitnesses. The tests by Clifford and Scott (1978)[2] shows that people who watched a violent film remembered fewer of the forty items of information about the event than a control group that watched a less-stressful version.

From the first experiments by Loftus and Palmer, the findings clearly illustrate that the information that we obtain from first hand eye witness will not be retained for long. The changes and events that follow the recorded information will be able to distort the recent information that had been previously stored. This information has the possibility of being corrupted or lost.

Introduction

The experiment is aimed at testing the hypothesis that the language used in eye testimony can affect the memory.

This by extension tries to test on how latter information can affect the former.  The witness is seen as a person that is able to store the information. The delivery, however will depend on the kind of information that they come across in the contemporary society. In this context, we reflect Loftus and Palmer’s experiment using a class of twenty students. The methodology does not change, since all the techniques are applied to the twenty students. The test is conducted under nearly similar conditions, in an attempt to confirm that subsequent information is able to distort the knowledge we have about past events[3]. This makes us not be in a position to deliver exactly what we recorded, prior to the reception of that subsequent information. The findings of this experiment revealed the effectiveness and relevance of Lotus and Palmer’s findings of 1974.

Methodology

This experiment was conducted in a classroom situation to find out the reality in the above assertions. It is an application of the initial first experiment done by Loftus and Palmer on memory and impact of contemporary information on the stored information.

Design

The experiment is based on equal number of participants. The categorization was done on a random basis, not taking into account any specific differences in terms of age or any other physical or psychological aspects. The experiment involved a total of twenty persons.

Participants

The persons mentioned above were twenty students. They were placed in five equal groups of four students each. There was also a supervisor that was in charge of the students, who went through the whole experiment, and analyzed the whole exercise. The categorization was for the observation of the different conditions that were created in the course of the study.

Materials

The main material that was used for this study were video clips involving car accidents. They were shown to the students by their instructor. There were seven clips based on car accidents. The clips contained various scenes of the accident from which observations were to be made. This experiment relied on the clips since eye-witnessing was the main issue.

Procedure

Having categorized the students in groups of five, they were shown seven clips concerning of traffic accidents. The clips were as short as five minutes and the longest lasting was thirty minutes long. Following each clip, the students were asked to write an account of the accident they has just witnessed. In doing this, five different conditions were created (each with four participants).

Independent variables were created by means of simply changing the word structure of the questions. These five different conditions were created as depicted as shown below.

Condition 1: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’

Condition 2: ‘About fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?’

Condition 3: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?’

Condition 4: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’

Condition 5: ‘About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?’

It is therefore clear that the basic question to the students was “How fast were the cars going when they each other?” In each of the conditions created, a totally different word or phrase was used to fill the blank space. These five words were; smashed, collided, bumped, hit, and contacted. The experiment lasted for about an hour and thirty munities, and a different ordering of the films was presented to each group of the participants.

Results

The phrasing of the verb brought about differing answers in the speed of the vehicles. The mean estimations obtained from each group was obtained and tabulated as shown below.

Wilcoxon Test

The strength of the verbs determine the estimation rate

Those values obtained from the verb “smashed” were highest since the verb appears much stronger than the others. The weakest among the verbs is “contacted” and it has a range of 9.0 from the highest ranking. The results tabulated above are a clear indication of how the word phrasing had an impact on the same answer from the five groups of students. The verb ‘smashed’ obtained the highest average mean while the verb ‘contacted’ realized the lowest of all the average speeds.

Explanation of the findings

The results of the experiment were analyzed in two dimensions, based on two different variables that might have contributed to the difference in the speed estimates. The estimations appeared to have had significant differences. The range between the largest and the smallest estimation was 9.0 miles per hour. This means there might have been a very large distortion of the information on the speed at which the vehicles were moving.

From one dimension, it was argued that the results were distorted by the variation in vocabulary used to frame the five similar questions about the accident. The memory of how fast the vehicles were moving must have been distorted by the verb changes that were made. Each student, therefore, gave a different response from each of the five groups.

From another perspective, it was argued that the variation in results might have been due to response-bias factors. This comes in a situation where the student is not aware of the exact velocity at which the vehicles were moving, and therefore through adjustment, he tries to estimate and fit in the values of the speed at which the vehicles were moving just before the accident took place. The estimation is simply made to fit the needs of the questioner.

Discussion

It is from this experiment that we can base the argument that our memory is subject to alterations from the issues that we come across in the day-to-day circumstances that we go through. We may have the chance to witness the real happenings of scene, for example an accident scene. Soon after leaving the place, we are most likely to come across other conflicting information. This new information is able to alter the existing one already kept in our memory by some aspects. We may not be in a position to narrate everything about the scene as it happened.

The same applies in the case of eye witnesses. They will cover all the happenings of the scene, but will hardly be in a position to give the recorded version of the information. Just as the students’ responses varied with the alterations of the questioning verbs, the witnesses’ reports are not likely to reflect the actual findings of the cases at hand. This implies that the memory is not a reliable storage point for information that we merely observe. The most important aspects that require quick remembrance like quantitative values will be the most likely data to be lost first[4].

In the real life situation, students in a classroom will be given the same information about the same entity. This is done under the same conditions. After some time has elapsed, the instructor may decide to set an exam about the same thing. Even when these questions are asked using the same word formation structures, it will be true to note that the students will give varying answers.

The answers will vary from student to student. Some will give the same responses but generally the responses will have been altered by the issues and information that the students will come across. Before the examination date, the students are likely to come across different complementing or conflicting information concerning the same topic of discussion.

Our memory is not like the machine memory[5]. It is susceptible to changes and modifications. The same information may be communicated to our memory, but in different forms or explanations. It is easy for us to change this information to match the prevailing information that we come across. The court witnesses may not fully be depended on by the judges, based on the time that has elapsed between the hearing of the case, and the time that the incident occurred. It will merely be part of what they may remember, or just mere defense to protect the person that they stand for. The initial facts about the happenings of an event may not be stored in its original format[6]. The information is not permanent as it is, but will eventually be transformed or polluted by the new information that we come across. This makes it unreliable.

Application

The application of the Loftus and Palmer studies are contemporary in the daily operation of the society. The information that we store in our memory does not stay as it is. Argument may always be based on the fact that the information is not stored in the permanent memory part of our mind. This may only be the reason as to why we easily forget the information, but not the reason as to why we may get the information corrupted[7].

Conclusion

The information that is stored in our memory is subject to alteration based on new information that we acquire. In order to leave the information in its original form, it is advisable not to corrupt the information by any other form of related ideas pertaining to the delivery of the same. Such a state of complete remembrance is not possible to achieve. We might be able to retain this information based on what we observe but the delivery will not capture the same thing that we observed earlier[8]. Loftus and Palmer, in the 1974 experiment established these findings. In our class of twenty, the differing results are obtained from the variation in the word choice of the. This has been criticized by some arguments of social and moral issues, in the perspective that they have a negative effect on people. This is has led to the concept that eye witnesses alone are not enough to send somebody to prison. Others argue that the manner in which the experiment was conducted must have had some psychological impact on the twenty students differently. The theory, however, still holds.

References

Bernstein, D. A. (2007). Psychology. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin.

Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clifford, B.R. and Scott, J. (1978). Individual and situational factors in eyewitness memory.       Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 352-359.

Dickstein, L. J., Riba, M. B., Oldham, J. M., & American Psychiatric Press. (1997). Review of    psychiatry: Volume 16. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

Lintern, F., Williams, L., & Hill, A. (2003). Heinemann psychology AS for OCR. Oxford: Heinemann.

Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Nissan, E. (2010). Computer applications for handling legal evidence, police investigation and case argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer.

Rathus, S. A., Veenvliet, S. G., & Maheu, S. J. (2012). Psych. Toronto: Nelson Education.

[1] Nissan (2010)

[2] Clifford and Scott (1978) – Conducted an experiment in which they compared the level at which the sample units would remember the scenes of the clips shown. The test was conducted alongside a control unit where there were test samples and others that watched the movie under violent conditions.

[3] Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005)

[4] Studies by Rathus, Veenvliet, and Maheu (2012) reveal the contextual reality of this statement

[5] Bernstein (2007)

[6] Lintern, Williams, & Hill,  (2003)

[7] Loftus (1996)

[8] Dickstein, Riba, Oldham and American Psychiatric Press. (1997)