![]() One of the pair was the original slide containing the stop sign the other was a replacement slide containing a yield sign. ![]() Later, subjects were shown pairs of slides. For example, subjects were asked, “How fast was the car traveling when it passed the yield sign?” But this question was actually designed to be misleading, because the original slide included a stop sign rather than a yield sign. Some subjects were then asked leading questions about what had happened in the slides. ![]() In an early study of eyewitness memory, undergraduate subjects first watched a slideshow depicting a small red car driving and then hitting a pedestrian (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). Something as straightforward as which sort of traffic sign was in place at an intersection can be confused if subjects are exposed to erroneous information after the initial incident. Misinformation Misinformation can be introduced into the memory of a witness between the time of seeing an event and reporting it later. Psychological science has taught us what some of those precautions might involve, and we discuss some of that science now. There is also hope, though, that many of the errors may be avoidable if proper precautions are taken during the investigative and judicial processes. For details on this case and other (relatively) lucky individuals whose false convictions were subsequently overturned with DNA evidence, see the Innocence Project website ( ). After more than 10 years, he was exonerated (and the real rapist identified) based on DNA evidence. In a particularly famous case, a man named Ronald Cotton was identified by a rape victim, Jennifer Thompson, as her rapist, and was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison. Faulty eyewitness testimony has been implicated in at least 75% of DNA exoneration cases-more than any other cause (Garrett, 2011). There is also evidence that mistaken eyewitness evidence can lead to wrongful conviction-sending people to prison for years or decades, even to death row, for crimes they did not commit. There is now a wealth of evidence, from research conducted over several decades, suggesting that eyewitness testimony is probably the most persuasive form of evidence presented in court, but in many cases, its accuracy is dubious. When an eyewitness stands up in front of the court and describes what happened from her own perspective, this testimony can be extremely compelling-it is hard for those hearing this testimony to take it “with a grain of salt,” or otherwise adjust its power. Why Is Eyewitness Testimony an Important Area of Psychological Research?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |