A weakness of the model is that rehearsal appears to be the only way through which information passes from STM to LTM. The model neglects to consider that people can remember information without always having to rehearse it, for example flash bulb memories can be recalled because of the emotional impact they have. Another criticism of this model is that it is too simplistic, The STM and LTM are more complex and less unitary than suggested. The model suggests that there is a single short-term store and long-term store. Contrary to that there is evidence from brain damaged patients proving that there are different types of STM and LTM in various places in the brain. (52)
The Level of processing theory contradicts the multi store model suggesting that rehearsal is not as important as the model assumes rather the depth of processing that creates memories. The multi store model has inspired further research into memory that has improved and expanded its main principles.23
1b)
Eyewitness testimony has proven very helpful to the police in solving a great number of crimes and incidents. On the other hand it is not 100% reliable leading to wrongful convictions and in some parts of the world death as a punishment. This is why is important for psychologists to study the reasons why eyewitness testimonies can be inaccurate and to possibly come up with ways of improving the quality and quantity of recall.(42)
There are many factors that affect our ability to recall memories accurately. Bartlett (1932) carried out a study in relation to reconstructive memory. He read a Red Indian folktale called “The War of the Ghosts” to English participants. The participants found the story unfamiliar and unusual according to their Western culture .After an interval they were asked to recall the story as accurately as possible. Their versions of the tale were found to be distorted and the differences included; rationalizations, omissions, changes of order, alterations in importance and distortions of emotions. The participants were found to be influenced by their own culture in recalling the story. The changes in the story indicated that the participants where actively reconstructing the story to fit their schemas. Hence according to Bartlett, we have schemas for different situations in life according to our own experiences. For example in a restaurant schema we would expect a setting of tables and chairs, customers eating, waiters taking orders and so forth. Therefore we would not pay too much attention to what we already expect to happen. Bartlett suggested that schemas can distort our memories of particular incidents.(88)
Bartlett research is important in providing the first idea of schemas which are important in the study of memory. His studies have ecological validity and show how we use schemas in everyday life for example in predicting certain situations. Also the idea of schemas has important implications for the reporting of events in cases where eyewitnesses give testimony.(35)
Some critics on the other hand have criticised Bartlett’s studies as being vague and lacking in rigor. Schemas differ from each individual and so results can not be generalised.Result for the experiment on reconstructive memory cannot be reliable as the intervals of which the participants where asked to recall the story were often changed(33)
Elizabeth Loftus is another leading researcher into eyewitness testimony, particularly focusing on information provided by eyewitnesses after an incident. In one of her studies Loftus (1975) she investigated the effect of leading questions on the recall of memory.150 participants were split into two groups. One group was asked questions consistent with what they had seen, for example “How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the ‘Stop’ sign?” The second group were asked the exact question as the first group with the exception of one misleading which was “How fast was the white sports car going when it passed the barn when travelling along the country road?” there was no barn in the film. A week later the participants were asked ten more questions the last question was whether they had seen a barn.2.7 percent of the first group and 17.3 percent of the second group said they had seen a barn. Loftus proved that the misleading question led the participants to reconstruct their memory by including the non-existent barn, therefore recalling false memory. This study shows that misleading questions can distort original memory reducing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. (84)
Another factor found to affect the recall of memory is weapon focus: Loftus (1979) identified the weapon focus. There were two conditions in this experiment in both conditions participants heard a discussion in an adjoining room. In condition 1 a man emerged holding a paper-knife covered with blood. When asked to identify the man from 50 photos, participants in condition 1 were 49 percent accurate compared with 33 percent accuracy in condition 2.This research suggests that the participants in condition 2 were focused mostly on the weapon rather than the man’s appearance. This proves that (40)
Elizabeth Loftus’ studies have shown that postevent information and leading questions can distort eyewitness testimony. Her studies have been criticised because they were conducted in laboratories, where the environment would be controlled unlike in real life. She suggests that leading questions cause eyewitnesses to reconstruct new memory and delete original memory which is not always the case as traces of original memory may still remain. In real life cases eyewitnesses can be affected emotionally, this can affect their recall of memory whereas in a laboratory there are no emotions involved.(55)
A great deal of research has been carried out by many psychologists to highlight ways in which eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. Considering the principles highlighted on the fallibility of eyewitness testimony, some psychologists have delved into finding ways of improving recall accuracy. Geiselman et al. (1985) developed the cognitive interview. The interview was based on four main techniques namely; recreating context of the actual incident, Reporting all the information remembered, different perspectives, and different orders of recall. The interview was compared to the way the police interviewed in real Life cases. They found that people’s recall was much better when retrieval cues were used, asking the questions in chronological order helped to trigger more original details of the incident. The cognitive interview proved to be more effective than the police interview. Although it is time consuming the cognitive interview is more likely to produce more accurate recall than the standard police interview.(94)
Research on the memory has proved to be vital in identifying reasons for inaccurate memory recall in eyewitness testimony. Research by Bartlett and Loftus among others, has been very useful in highlighting problems with eyewitness testimony and their principles have been considered in the development of the cognitive interview. Geiselman et al. looked into ways of improving accuracy of recall in eyewitness testimony and came up with the cognitive interview which achieved better results than the standard police interviews. Although the cognitive interview is not without its problems, it has helped improve the way police interview eyewitnesses to achieve better recall accuracy hence lessening chances of miscarriages of justice.(60)
Refrences
Cardwell, M., Clark, L., Meldrum ,C.(2000),Psychology for AS Level, London: Harper Collins
Eyesenck,M.W.(2000),
