Thanks for the Memories! In 1975, the findings of Elizabeth Loftus, a leading researcher in the area of memory, were connected to legal eyewitness testimonies. Typically, people believe that the way a person recounts an event from memory must be the way it really happened. Loftus was able to exhibit that the wording of questions asked of eyewitnesses at a later time could alter their memories of the event.
Theoretical Propositions Loftus hypothesized that if eyewitnesses are asked questions that contain a false presupposition about the event that occurred, the eyewitness may now produce new false information. For example, if you witnessed a car accident and were asked: How many people were in the car that was speeding? You might add speeding information to your memory of the event, even if the car was not actually speeding. Method and Results Test 1: 150 students watched a short film of a car accident
in which the driver ran through a stop sign into oncoming traffic. Half the students were asked how fast the car was going when it ran the stop sign. The other half were asked how fast the car was going when it turned right. Both groups were asked if they saw a stop sign. In the first group, 53% said they saw a stop sign while only 35% in second group claimed to have seen it. Test 2: 40 subjects were shown a clip of a classroom being disrupted by 8 demonstrators. Half of the subjects were asked if the leader of the 4 demonstrators was male. The other half was asked if the leader of the 12 demonstrators was male. A week later, they were asked how many demonstrators entered the classroom. The first group averaged 6.40 while the second group averaged 8.85. On average, the wording of one question altered the way the subjects remembered the event. Test 3: 150 students watched a clip of an accident involving a white sports car. The first half were asked how fast the white sports car was going when it passed the barn on the country road.
The other half were asked how fast the white sports car was going on the country road. A week later, they were asked if they saw a barn. 17.3% answered “Yes” to the test question compared with only 2.7% in the no-barn group. Test 4: 3 groups of 50 students watched a clip of a car hitting a baby carriage pushed by a man. Group D was asked if they saw a barn in the film (direct question about nonexistent item). Group F was asked if they saw a station wagon parked in front of the barn (presupposed question about nonexistent item). Group C had generic questions (control group). A week later, 15.6% of Group D claimed to remember the nonexistent objects, 29.2% for Group F and 8.4% for Group C. Conclusion In result of these studies, subjects who received confusing forms of questions were less accurate than those who were asked direct questions. Thus, the reliability of eyewitnesses is being questioned and the jury must be made aware of the care they must use when evaluating the testimony.