Reconstructive Memory: Eye Witness Testimony (SL IB Psychology)

What is reconstructive memory?

• Memory is not like a camera, it does not record an event faithfully or with 100% accuracy, rather it is retrieved as fragments of the event:
  • sometimes omitting key pieces of information or inserting information which was not present at the time of the event;
  • sometimes recalling the sequences of the event in a different order to the original;
  • sometimes being influenced by other people’s recall of the event or by media reports of the event
• Information after the event is one way in which reconstructive memory (RM) may be manifested i.e. you are present at a birthday party but your recall of the party will be influenced by discussing it with others afterwards, by viewing photos of the party on social media, by your memories of other birthday parties you have attended in the past
• Confabulation is another way in which RM occurs in which recall of the event is impacted by distortion of the information, fabrication of details (e.g. inserting details not present at the time of the event) and misinterpretation of the information

What is the relevance of reconstructive memory & eyewitness testimony?

• When someone is present at a crime then they become an eyewitness (EW) to that crime; when they give an account of what they saw and heard at the crime scene this is known as eyewitness testimony (EWT)
• EWs generally want to help the police - they have sincere intentions about telling the ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ to the police who take their original EWT and in court when they are acting as a witness (usually for the prosecution)
• One of the reasons for EWT lacking accuracy is the very fact that EWs have this need to help: they may work too hard to recall what they witnessed and in doing so they may fall prey to the manifestations of RM outlined above (e.g. confabulation)
• Another key – and highly researched – error when obtaining EWT is when leading questions are used by the police (or in court – though this is officially not permitted)
  • A leading question is one in which the answer is contained in the question, there is the assumption that there is one ‘true’ response to the question e.g. What attracted you to your billionaire husband? i.e. the interviewer ‘leads’ the witness to the response
• A leading question is an example of information after the event as it provides an extra layer of information to that which was witnessed at the scene, it may insert (or remove) key information that could lead to the real culprit of the crime getting away with it (or even worse, to an innocent person being convicted of the crime)
  • An example of a leading question is: So did you see him with the weapon? as opposed to ‘So did you see him with a weapon?’;
  • The use of ‘the’ suggests that there definitely was a weapon (and that he must have been holding it) whereas ‘a’ leaves it open as to there even being a weapon present at all
• The police may not be aware that they are using leading questions with EWs but this is something that they should address as juries tend to find EWT very compelling and in the absence of DNA evidence they may use it to come to a verdict

It is crucial for justice to be done that eyewitnesses give testimony that is based on what they actually witnessed rather than giving a reconstructed version of events.

Which research studies investigate reconstructive memory & eyewitness testimony?

• Loftus & Palmer (1974) – the use of leading questions has an effect on EWT

Loftus & Palmer (1974) is available as a separate Key Study – just navigate the Reliability of Cognitive Processes section of this topic to find it (Two Key Studies of Reconstructive Memory)