Alyssa San JoseTopic: Reliability of memories in eyewitness testimoniesLoftus and Palmer (1974) was a two-part study. In Part A, participants were showna video of two cars crashing into each other. After the video, the participants were dividedinto groups where they were asked how fast were the cars going when they “hit” (firstgroup) or “smashed” (second group) or “contacted” (third group) each other. The averagespeed responses from each group varied based on which word the question used. In Part Bof the study, a week later, all the participants were asked if there was any glass in the video.The “smashed” group had more people that answered that there was shattered glasspresent, although there was none. This study concludes that memory is not reliable basedon reconstructive nature of schema. The words “hit”, “contacted”, and “smashed” havedifferent connotations, and when applied to the video, the memory is reconstructed andproduces images that may not have been in the video, leading participants to believe therewas glass when there wasn’t. This study is extremely powerful in showing the reconstructive nature of schema. Itis extremely interesting that memories can actually be altered to fit pre-existing notions ofwords in a question. When first learning about schema, it can be thought of as a filingcabinet where each memory is stored based on category. So, if a person encounters snowfor the first time, a schema for snow is created, a new file for the cabinet. Every incidentincluding snow after the first is either assimilated—fitting new experience into existingschema—or accommodated—changing the existing schema if a new form of snow is seen.So in Loftus and Palmer (1974), each word has been filed into pre-existing schemaassociated with other car crashes that participants have witnessed or read about before thestudy. The participants then use their schema to define the new memory that has nowbeen assimilated. The result is the changed memories, which can determine how cases incourt are decided. In the past, eyewitness testimonies used to be the most significant piece of evidencein a court of law. In recent years DNA forensic testing has proved many cases wrong thathad previously been closed because an eyewitness testified. To say that this is scary wouldbe an understatement. The law is supposed to be unbiased and fair. To have prisonerssentenced to life in jail for rape and murder, suddenly be set free and be told “Sorry wewere wrong, you’re innocent.” Ramifications of using eyewitness testimonies include thisfact that a wrong individual could be convicted as the result of using a leading question. To attempt to fix this issue, it could be suggested that using as neutral terms aspossible when examining a witness. Instead of saying “crashed” it would be helpful if thelawyer instead chose a word such as “contacted”. However, this could lead to problems ofphrasing and if the lawyer chooses to use a leading question to sway the witness evenrisking an objection for doing so, the schema would already be activated. To fix this issue,another solution could be undermining eyewitness testimonies and require another pieceof information to convict an individual. By pairing DNA evidence and a testimony, it couldbe concluded but a testimony alone would not sentence a person to life in jail. Overall, the reconstructive nature of memory is fascinating, and it is interesting towonder what memories of our own have been reconstructed based on assimilation
View Full Document
Unlocking...