later found, while Laszlo Virag was imprisoned that another man had committed the
crime.
One factor that may contribute to this mistaken identity is the own-race bias or cross-
race effect (CRE) the term was introduced by Monahan & Walker (1988), studies
have shown that the cross-race effect occurs when an individual is attempting to
recognise a person from another race; it has been shown by psychologists, such as
Meissner and Brigham (2001), that an individual is 50% more likely to recognise
someone from the same race as themselves than from another race. There have been
three forms of studying CRE that have been carried out, one is to examine previous
cases, this is called an archival study, the second form conducted was in the form of a
field study and finally there have been laboratory experiments. An example of an
archival study was carried out by Connors, Lundregan, Miller and McEwen (1996),
these four individuals studied from the exonerated cases in the US to see what
percentage of cases of mistaken identity were made by individuals of alternative race,
compared with the percentage of mistaken identity made by people of the same race.
One example of a field study that was carried out, was by Wright, Boyd and Tredoux
(2001), during this field study two confederates would enter a shopping centre and
ask a member of the public for help looking for lost jewellery, in South Africa 50
white participants and 50 black participants were asked for help, and in Bristol 58
white participants and 43 black participants were asked for help from either a white or
black confederate. A few minutes after the confederate left the scene a researcher
would approach the participant, introduce themselves and ask the participant to
identify the confederate from a selection of photographs. This study found that no
matter which form of identifying the confederate was used, that people of the same
race were able to identify the confederate by a ratio of more than 2:1, in favour of the
same race.
Both the archival study and the field study seem more ecologically valid than a
laboratory experiment, as the archival study is looking at data that has been collected
from actual events, and the field study is putting a participant in a situation that is
more true to life, than a laboratory experiment.
(Pie Charts)
These Pie Charts show that the majority of victims, who have misidentified a suspect,
are Caucasian, and that the majority of misidentified criminals are African American;
this goes a small way to showing that the cross-race effect may occur.
The Weapon Focus Effect
(Fig5)
A resent case of armed robbery happened on 13th March, 2008, two men entered
Ladbrokes Bookmakers, on Falkland Road, in Surrey, at around 6pm, carrying a hand
gun. The two armed robbers told the two staff members, who were the only people in
the bookmakers, to ‘get down’; The two robbers then stole the cash from the tills and
fled the scene. The two staff members gave a brief description of the robbers as both
being 6ft tall, wearing hooded tops, with scarves wrapped around their faces.
One problem that eyewitnesses to armed robbery are faced with, and possibly why
such a poor description was given, is the weapon focus effect, this theory has been
suggested by such psychologists as Loftus, E., Loftus, G., & Messo (1987). Weapon
focus seems to impair an eyewitnesses ability to events happening around them; there
are several theories to what causes weapon focus, one of these is that the witness is
focusing on the weapon and not on what is happening around them, secondly that the
witness is taking in all of the information of the event, but the details of the weapon
are stronger, so the witness is able to recall the details of it better, thirdly that the
weapon is a threat, so increases arousal, so the witness focuses on the weapon, and
finally that the weapon is an unusual object, as in it does not belong in the particular
situation, which causes the witness to focus on the weapon.
An experiment was carried out by Pickel (1998), to test two of the possible theories,
whether weapon focus is caused by increased arousal, due to the threat of the weapon,
or if weapon focus is caused due to the weapon being an unusual object, Pickel had a
number of participants watch one of five two minute videos, that took place in a
hairdressers, a man would walk in and hand the receptionist some money, there was
one variable changed in each of the four videos, this was what the man was carrying
in his other hand. In the first video the man carried nothing, this was the control video,
in the second the man carried a pair of scissors, the was considered as a possible
weapon, so was a threat, but was not an unusual object to find in a hairdressers. In the
third video the man carried a handgun, this is an obvious weapon, so is a threat and
also an unusual object, as in it does not belong in the scene. In the fourth video the
man carried a wallet, this was not a weapon nor was it an unusual object, and in the
final video the man carried a piece of raw chicken, this was not a threat, but was an
unusual object.
After ten minutes, the participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire, the first part
of the questionnaire focused on the receptionist, this was the control as the
receptionist was present before the man entered with the objects. The second part of
the questionnaire focused on the man, the participants were asked what he was doing
and then asked to identify the man from a line-up. During the questionnaire both the
handgun and piece of raw chicken effected the participant’s recollection of events,
which were both unusual objects, but the scissors that were a threat but not unusual to
the scene did not effect the participants recollection; Pickel concludes from this that it
is the object being unusual that creates weapon focus and not the threat of the object.
A flaw with this experiment seems to be that it is not truly measuring increased
arousal levels, as the participants would not be effected by watching a video, being as
the experiment set out to compare the unusualness of an object compared to an
increase in arousal levels, as a cause of weapon focus, the experiment is lacking
internal validity.
Photo Bias
(fig6)
On 8th April, 1986, a woman, who worked in a shoe shop, was robbed and raped at
gunpoint, the culprit of the crime ejaculated on a piece of the victims clothing, a pink
sweater, the victim was taken to the hospital where a vaginal swab was collected, the
swab and pink sweater were collected as evidence. Later the victim was taken to the
police station were she tried to identify the assailant, the victim was unable to identify
her attacker; the victim was then taken to a briefing room in the police station, in this
room was a wanted picture of Herman Atkins, after visiting the briefing room the
victim was shown a photo line up, from this line up the victim chose Atkins as her
attacker.
The police then took the wanted picture to a shop next door to the shoe shop, where
the attack took place; the shop owner identified Atkins as a person who had been in
the shop earlier. Atkins was found guilty in 1988 and sentenced to 45 years for
forcible rape and robbery, Atkins was later exonerated on 18th February 2000 due to
DNA evidence taken from the victim and her sweater, Atkins has since graduated
from university with a BSc in Psychology.
One thing that may have contributed to this eyewitness’ misidentification is photo
bias, an experiment carried out at the University of Nebraska, in 1977, looked at
photo bias and its effects, students carrying out the roles of eyewitnesses watched a
number of criminals committing a crime. One hour later the students playing as
eyewitnesses looked at a number of mug shots that included pictures of several of the
criminals they had previously seen; a week after the eyewitnesses were asked to
identify the criminals from a line up, 8% of the people identified from the line up as
the criminals, did not take part in the crime nor was their photo present in the mug
shots that the eyewitnesses viewed. 20% of the people identified from the line up did
not take part in the crime, but did have their photo present with the mug shots, with a
ratio of 2.5:1 between misidentified suspects this shows that photo bias may well play
a part in misidentification.
Memory
(Fig7)
When an eyewitness recalls a memory from an event, it is not like a video recording,
the memory is more like clips with the mind filling in the blanks; according to Loftus
& Doyle (1992) eyewitness’ memory of an event goes through three stages. Firstly
the acquisition stage, this is when an eyewitness first sees an event occur, the second
stage is the retention stage, this is when some time has passed and the eyewitness has
stored the memory and the final stage is the retrieval stage, this is when the
eyewitness tries to recall the stored memory. An eyewitness’ memory of an event can
be interfered with at any of these of stages, at the acquisition stage the eyewitness’
memory can be interfered with by their surroundings, things such as the quality of the
lighting, the duration of the event and even weapon focus, during this stage the
eyewitness’ memory can also be interfered with internally, with such things as fear,
stress or even the eyewitness’ age or gender. During the second stage, the retention
stage, the eyewitness is more susceptible to external factors changing their previous
memory, it is at this stage photo bias may take effect.
Alterative Motive
In 1976, Peter Hain, who later in 1991became Peter Hain MP, for Neath, South
Wales, was accused of stealing £490, from Barclays bank in Sussex; at the time Peter
Hain was a postgraduate at Sussex University and President of the Young Liberals.
The only evidence against Peter Hain was identification from 3 school boys and a
cashier from the bank; the 3 school boys gave chase to the assailant, but did not get a
clear look at him, but gave a description that fitted Peter Hain, the cashier later picked
out Peter Hain from a police line-up.
Members of Peter Hain’s family gave testimony, that Peter Hain had not left the
family home on the day of the robbery, and eyewitnesses had described the assailant
as wearing different clothes than Peter Hain had been wearing on the day. Peter Hain
was later acquitted, Peter Hain was an activist and demonstrated his views against the
apartheid, Peter Hain spoke to reporters, and suggested that South African agents may
of framed him "I think there is plenty of reason to suspect that there might have been
a frame-up but it is nothing substantial," (BBC, 2005. Retrieved on 25/04/2008, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2523000/2523609.stm)
he said.
In the House of Commons six MPs, led by Liberal David Steel, called for the
resignation of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Norman Skelhorn, over the
Hain case.
This is another case that raises question to the reliability of eyewitness testimony,
even though it is not suggested that the idea of a ‘frame-up’ is an everyday
occurrence, it does still show that there could be an alterative motive.
(fig8)
Another case that shows an alterative motive is the case of Warren Blackwell, at the
age of 36, this individual was found guilty of indecently insulting a woman, after a
New Years Eve party, and was sentenced to three years, in 1999, in Northampton
Crown Court; this sentence was later found to be too lenient and was raised to five
years.
Warren Blackwell was later released at an Appeal, new evidence arose that the victim
had a history of accusing men of committing similar offences, and that the victim had
an "ability to lie", and self harmed herself.
This case also raises questions to the reliability of eyewitness testimony, as it shows
that the eyewitness may have psychological issues, or issues in their life that need
addressing, whatever the case it shows that an eyewitness may not be telling the truth.
False Memories
(Fig9)
One psychologists who has carried out research in the field of implanting false
memories is Elizabeth Loftus, one of her experiments, Loftus and Pickrell (1995),
consisted of 24 participants who were told of four stories from their childhood, 3 were
true, provided by family members and one was false, a story of them being lost in a
shopping mall. The family members provided information about a certain mall that
the participants had visited so as to make the false memory plausible, the researchers
met with the participants on just three occasions, firstly to tell them of the memories
and twice to ask them about them. The 24 participants were told that the experiment
was to test childhood memories, out of the 24 participants, 7 recalled the memory as
being true, even though this is only just under a third of the participants, it does show
how easily a false memory can be implanted, especially as the researchers
accomplished this while only visiting the participant just three times.
Eyewitness Experts
(Fig10)
A number of States in America will not allow experts in the field of eyewitness
testimony to give evidence in a court of law, it is argued that the members of a jury
are aware of the problems of memory, due to the problems that they, the jury, would
face with their own memory in everyday life. It is believed by such States that the
introduction of an expert in eyewitness testimony would discredit the evidence
provided by the eyewitness in the case and prevent the jury from weighing up the
evidence as it is supposed to do so. This is often argued in British courts, with the
calling of psychiatrists, where the calling of expert witnesses in matters that are seen
out of the courts knowledge is encouraged.
Leading Questions
(Fig11)
Leading questions have been discouraged from the courts, as a leading question
applies that facts of the case have been settled, an example of this would be, “When
you saw Mr X leaving the store…”, while it may still be in dispute whether it was in
fact Mr X that the eyewitness actually saw. The courts have disallowed leading
questions during direct examination, as the eyewitness is meant to testify information
that is known by the individual, with out persuasion from the solicitor for the desired
answer. Leading questions are allowed during cross examination, this is in order for
the opposing side to determine the reliability of the answers during direct examination
and the credibility of the eyewitness.
Many researchers have carried out research in the field of leading questions, one of
these researchers is Elizabeth Loftus, Loftus carried out four experiments where a
total of 490 participants watched a number of ‘fast-moving’ videos; these experiments
were set up to see if a leading question asked straight after the incident would
influence the answer to a question asked considerably later. When the participants
were asked questions about objects containing false presuppositions, questions about
objects that were not present, or questions containing true presuppositions, questions
about objects that were present, it was more likely that the participant, when asked at
a later date, would report that the object was present; an important aspect shown by
these experiments, as far as eyewitness testimony goes, is that a false recollection of
events can be introduced by asking a leading question.
One experiment that shows this is Loftus & Zanni (1975) this experiment was carried
out on 100 students, all of the students watched a clip from a movie that consisted of a
multiple-car accident, immediately after watching the film clip, the 100 students filled
out a 22 word questionnaire. Out of these 22 questions, 6 questions had one small
variable changed, each of the 6 questions started with the words “Did you see…”, the
changed variable was the fourth word, 50 of the student’s fourth word was ‘the’ and
the other 50 student’s fourth word was ‘a’; the use of the word ‘the’ suggests to the
student that the object in question was present in the film clip and that the question is
asking whether the student observed it or not. Where the word ‘a’ does not suggest
whether an object is present or not and so the question is more open to interpretation;
three of the six questions with the changed variable were on objects that where
present in the film clip, and three of the six questions were of objects that were not
present in the film clip. The findings of the experiment were that whether the object in
the six questions was present or not, the small change to the question influenced the
student in stating that the object was present in the film clip, and so were more likely
to mark ‘yes’ to seeing the object when asked the question containing ‘the’.
Conclusion
When researching into eyewitness testimony one case that stood out was the case of
Donald Thompson, Thompson is an eyewitness expert in Australia, on this particular
evening Thompson was on a live television show giving a debate on the subject of
how unreliable an eyewitness’ memory is. On the show with Thompson were several
other psychologists and an assistant commissioner of the police; while the television
show was being broadcast a woman was being raped. Thompson was arrested, placed
in a line-up and identified by the rape victim as her attacker; when Thompson gave
his alibi a police officer sneered and said “Yes, I suppose you've got Jesus Christ, and
the Queen of England, too.”, his alibi was dismissed and Thompson was charged. It
was discovered later that the television show, that Thompson had appeared on, was on
in the background while the victim was going through this ordeal, and had mistaken
Thompson’s face with that of her attacker, this raised the questions, what if it had
been a pre-recorded show?, and what if Thompson had been home alone watching the
show?, it seems from some of the facts uncovered that the outcome may have been
quite different.
It is apparent that the British Government has taken a number of steps to help prevent
miscarriages of justice, due to eyewitness misidentification, however there seems to
be no fool proof system that can guarantee the safeguard of miscarriages occurring,
whether this be due to an error on the eyewitnesses part, possibly through no fault of
their own, as social psychologists have shown us, or to an alterative motive which
certain individuals may have.
This assignment has had a brief look at several cases were eyewitnesses have made
grave errors, sometimes leading to an innocent person going to jail, it could be argued
that these cases should have been investigated more, but what it does show us is that
eyewitnesses can, and do, make mistakes.
This assignment has also looked at several experiments carried out by social
psychologists looking at eyewitness testimony, these experiments have looked at
plausible reasons why even eyewitnesses with the best intentions may make mistakes,
and that the human memory is not infallible.
References
ADVOKATE – (N/A, Retrieved on 01/02/2008 from http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5223)
Armed robbery - (N/A, 2008. Retrieved on 26/03/2008, from http://www.surrey.police.uk)
Connors, Lundregan, Miller and McEwen (1996) – (Retrieved on 01/02/2008 from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=christian_meissner)
Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science - (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. p. iii.).
Devlin committee – (Retrieved on 04/02/2008 from http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Visual_identification_of_suspects)
Devlin Report (1976) – (Retrieved on 04/02/2008 from http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk/index.php?title=Visual_identification_of_suspects)
Donald Thompson - (Green, M., Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable. Retrieved on 01/02/2008 from http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html)
Experts in the field of eyewitness testimony - (N/A, Retrieved on 27/03/2008 from http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_14_number_9_2001.html)
Herman Atkins - (N/A, 2008. Retrieved on 06/02/2008, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/)
(Fig 1 - 11) A selection of illustrations. (Retrieved on 02/03/2008 from http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/w/witness.asp)
Laszlo Virag – (Rohrer, F., The problem with eyewitnesses. Retrieved on 23/04/2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm)
Leading questions - (Ehrhardt, C., 1996, USING LEADING QUESTIONS DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION. Retrieved on 17/03/2008 from http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/232/ehrhardt.html)
Loftus (1974) – (Retrieved on 02/02/2008 from http://www.psych.umn.edu/courses/spring06/lippmannb/psy4960/lectures/feb20eyewitness.pdf (p3)).
Loftus & Doyle (1992) -(Kapardis, A., 2003, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press.)
Loftus, E., Loftus, G., & Messo (1987) – (N/A, 2007. Retrieved on 19/03/2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_focus)
Loftus and Pickrell (1995) - (N/A Retrieved on 19/02/2008 from http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/implanting-false-memories-lost-in-mall.php)
Loftus & Zanni (1975) - (Loftus, E., 1975, Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report. Retrieved on 06/02/2008 from http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/loftus75.pdf)
Monahan & Walker (1988) – (Grad, H., 1996, Key Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Taylor & Francis)
Meissner and Brigham (2001) – (Retrieved on 04/02/2008 from http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=christian_meissner)
Nietzsche – (N/A, Retrieved on 02/02/2008 from http://volokh.com/posts/1144696805.shtml)
PACE - (N/A, 2008. Retrieved on 05/03/2008, from http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk).
Peter Hain – (BBC, 2005. Retrieved on 25/04/2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2523000/2523609.stm)
Pickel (1998) - (Pickel, K., 1998, Unusualness and threat as possible causes of weapon focus. Retrieved on 02/02/2008, http://www.uark.edu/misc/lampinen/read/pickel98.html)
Pie Charts – (Retrieved on 29/02/2008 from http://www.innocenceproject.org/)
Regina – v – Turnbull and another (1976) – (Burnside, J., 2007, Visual Identification of suspects. Retrieved on 13/02/2008 from http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk).
University of Nebraska (1977) - (Loftus, E., 1991, Witness For the Defence: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory On Trial. St. Martin's Press.)
Warren Blackwell – (Greenhill, S., 2006, Man freed but serial rape accuser remains anonymous. Retrieved on 12/03/2008 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=404898&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5)
Wright, Boyd and Tredoux (2001) – (Arbuthnott, K., 2004, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, CROSS-RACE EFFECT, pp. 1-13)
Bibliography
(Arbuthnott, K., 2004, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, CROSS-RACE EFFECT, pp. 1-13)
(BBC, 2005. Retrieved on 25/04/2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/9/newsid_2523000/2523609.stm)
(Burnside, J., 2007, Visual Identification of suspects. Retrieved on 13/2/2008 from http://www.wikicrimeline.co.uk).
(Ehrhardt, C., 1996, USING LEADING QUESTIONS DURING DIRECT EXAMINATION. Retrieved on 17/03/2008 from http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/232/ehrhardt.html)
(Grad, H., 1996, Key Issues in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Taylor & Francis)
(Greenhill, S., 2006, Man freed but serial rape accuser remains anonymous. Retrieved on 12/03/2008 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=404898&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5)
(Green, M., Eyewitness Memory is Unreliable. Retrieved on 01/02/2008 from http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/eyewitnessmemory.html)
(Kapardis, A., 2003, 2nd Ed. Cambridge University Press.)
(Loftus, E., 1975, Leading Questions and the Eyewitness Report. Retrieved on 06/02/2008 from http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/readings/loftus75.pdf)
(Loftus, E., 1991, Witness For the Defence: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory On Trial. St. Martin's Press.)
(N/A, 2008. A Tale of Discretion: Retrieved on 27/03/2008 from http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_14_number_9_2001.html)
(N/A, 2008. Retrieved on 06/02/2008, from http://www.innocenceproject.org)
(N/A, 2008. Retrieved on 05/03/2008, from http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk).
(N/A, Retrieved on 01/02/2008 from http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5223)
(N/A Retrieved on 19/02/2008 from http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/02/implanting-false-memories-lost-in-mall.php)
(N/A, 2008. Retrieved on 26/03/2008, from http://www.surrey.police.uk)
(Pickel, K., 1998, Unusualness and threat as possible causes of weapon focus. Retrieved on 02/02/2008, from http://www.uark.edu.html)
(Rohrer, F., The problem with eyewitnesses. Retrieved on 23/04/2008 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177082.stm)
(U.S. Department of Justice, 1996. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science. p. iii.).
