Improvement of Eyewitness Memory

Introductory Note

The accuracy of EM has been a cause of concern for a longer period of time. There have been cases across the globe where innocent people were falsely convicted and put behind the bars on the wrong identification by the witness. Some even spent more than 20 years and later found to be innocent and subsequently released. These cases put a big question mark on the judicial system and its advising and consulting services. There have been several attempts from all the stakeholders to deal with frequency and intensity of inaccuracy of eyewitness memory. There are few methods and techniques that help in improving eyewitness memory.

 

Methods and Techniques for Improving the Accuracy of EM

(i)  The change in the questioning technique such as replacing suggestive interviews with explorative interviews with genuine intention.

(ii)  By minimizing the time gap between the questioning and occurrence of an event.

(iii)  By offering a crime scene or crime relevant context.

(iv)  Memory testing soon after an event – The testing of memory immediately after the event tends to have a positive effect on eyewitness memory and acts as an inoculation against forgetting of event details.

(v)  Co-witness information – Providing the information received from the co-witness to the witness helps in improving the accuracy.

(vi)  Free reporting – The witnesses are required to be given complete freedom to speak. The better the environment for free reporting the better the accuracy of recall.

(vii)  Perceived support from law enforcement agencies – When the witness has high confidence related to personal and family security in law enforcement agencies and

administration, the better the accuracy of recall.

The National Institute of Justice of US published guidelines for obtaining the most accurate information from the eyewitnesses.

(i)       Establish good rapport – The relationship with witnesses works as a decisive factor in improving the accuracy.

(ii)  Ask the open-ended question – The questions neither be suggestive and manipulative nor have specific direction without interrupting the flow of speech of the witness.

(iii)     “Fillers” in the line-ups should generally fit the witness’s description  of the criminal – The fillers who are physically different from the description of the witness tend to increase the chances of identification irrespective of whether the identified individual has committed the crime or not. The fillers must be selected carefully.

(iv)     When conducting lineup identifications of suspects, place only one suspect in each lineup – In situations where more than one individual is suspected to be involved in the crime, the police generally place all suspects in one lineup. This process has been found to reduce the probability of correct identification.

(v)  The instructions to the witness prior to the identification or viewing the photographs should not be biased – The biased instructions tend to bias the choices of the witness (principle of suggestibility).

(vi)  Avoid giving feedback to the witness after the identification process is over – The feedback tends to decrease the confidence of the witness. The confidence is important because the witnesses are generally asked how confident they are in their judgment during court proceedings. Yuille & Cutshell (1986) in their landmark study established that eyewitness memory can be accurate if the event under study is real and the participants are sure that their account will be of some use.                                

They suggested following 2 probable reasons for high accuracy of eyewitness memory: -

(i)  The actual crime scene produces a high emotional effect on the eyewitness which makes strong impressions in the brain leading to the staying of information in the memory for a long time.

(ii)  The real nature of the criminal incident makes the witnesses feel that their account about the incident will have important consequences.

 

References:

Banaji, M. R., & Bhaskar, R. (1999). Implicit stereotypes and memory: The bounded rationality of social beliefs. In D. L. Schachter & E. Scarry (Eds.) Memory, brain and belief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the

number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(3), 364–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.364.

Lahey, B. B. (2007). Psychology An introduction. McGraw Hill.

Pansky, A., & Nemets, E. (2012). Enhancing the quantity and accuracy of

eyewitness memory via initial memory testing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1(1), 2–10. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2011.06.001

Shapira, A. A., & Pansky, A. (2019). Cognitive and metacognitive determinants of

eyewitness memory accuracy over time. Metacognition and Learning. doi:10.1007/s11409-019-09206-7

सिंह, ए. के. (2014). उच्चतर सामान्य मनोविज्ञान: मोतीलाल बनारसीदास

 

 

******