Download Reading 14

READING 14
Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between
Language and Memory by Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Please refer to the printed reader, Readings in Social Psychology 3/e, for the text of this
article.
Overview
Despite their persuasive impact on judges and juries, eyewitnesses to crimes are, in many
ways, imperfect. As is discussed in Chapter 12 (Law), perceptions are limited by
lighting, distance, and distraction; memories fade over time and as a result of
interference; and the ability to retrieve a memory can be biased by suggestive questions,
photographs, and lineups. In the following classic study, Loftus and Palmer (1974) began
to develop what is now an important and well established theory: that eyewitness
memories are constructed and then often reconstructed—not only on the basis of the
observed event but from information obtained afterward, as from suggestive questions.
As you read this article, ponder what it means about human memory and about the
accuracy of eyewitness reports commonly used in criminal trials.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. In our introduction to this article, we asked you to consider the debate about whether
the wording of the question affects a witness's memory or just his or her response. What
do you think Loftus and Palmer believe about this issue? Why do they think this? What is
your personal opinion about this issue?
2. What are the implications of the issues raised in this paper? How might the processes
described affect various aspects of law? How do the two sides of the debate mentioned in
the previous question suggest different implications?
3. In which stage or stages of the three stages of memory discussed in Chapter 12
(acquisition, storage, and retrieval) should reconstructive memory be most relevant?
Why?
4. Under what conditions should the effects observed in this article be stronger? Why?
Under what conditions should the effects observed in this article be weaker? Why?
5. Apart from the wording of a question, what other postevent information might have a
biasing effect on a witness's memory or testimony?
6. In addition to eyewitness testimony, how might reconstructive memory, or similar
processes, be relevant to each of the following issues: the hindsight bias (Chapter 2),
attribution (Chapter 4), stereotypes and prejudice (Chapter 5), intimate relationships
(Chapter 9), and compliance (Chapter 7)?
Answers to Critical Thinking Questions
1. Loftus and Palmer would suggest that question wording (or other information
conveyed after an event) actually alters a witness’ memory. In the Discussion, they write
that information from the event and post event information are integrated into “one
memory.” Their data support this conclusion, as wording not only affected the way
participants answered questions immediately after the event, but also affected their recall
of the event a week later. Specifically, participants who had been asked about the cars
“smashing” into each other were more likely to agree that they had seen broken glass at
the scene then participants who were asked about the cars “hitting” each other. This
finding suggests question wording did not merely affect participants’ responses, but also
altered participants’ memories for the event.
2. The present findings have numerous implications for the legal system. These findings
suggest that witnesses to a crime might be influenced by conversations with other
witnesses, media reports about the incident, police investigators’ questions, attorney
suggestion, and more. To the extent that postevent information only affects participants’
surface responses to questions, these findings would not be particularly problematic. But
given the conclusion that postevent information can actually alter witness memory, these
results are very important and noteworthy. The research of Loftus and Palmer and others
suggests that eyewitness accuracy will be improved if witnesses are interviewed
immediately after an event (before exposure to postevent information), and if these
interviews are conducted in an objective, nonsuggestive manner. In general, eyewitness
testimony is often not as reliable as many people assume it to be, and the processes
described by Loftus and Palmer may play a substantial role in this fact.
3. Reconstructive memory relates to information observed after an event that becomes
integrated into one’s memory about the event. Therefore, acquisition is not particularly
relevant in discussing reconstructive memory, as the process occurs after a memory for
an event has already been acquired. Much of the reconstructive process seems to occur
during storage, as individuals come to incorporate postevent information into the
preexisting memory in storage. In the Loftus and Palmer study, for example, the wording
of the questions leads participants to incorporate information about car speed or the
likelihood if broken glass into an already stored memory regarding a car accident. Loftus
would argue that upon retrieval, individuals recall and report the reconstructed memory,
not the originally acquired memory. Loftus suggests that the original memory has been
inextricably linked with the postevent information, and that this new reconstructed
memory is what emerges at the retrieval stage.
4. One would expect that findings such as these would be most likely when a person
does not have a particularly strong or detailed memory for an event. It would seem easier
to incorporate new information into a memory when the original version of that memory
is somewhat fuzzy. In addition, the influence of postevent information is likely greatest
when the source of that information is familiar or otherwise trustworthy. Information
from a family member might be more persuasive than information from a stranger, unless
that stranger is particularly trustworthy, such as a fellow witness who had a better look at
the assailant than you did or a police officer who presumably has more information about
the event. On the other hand, an emotionally-charged or otherwise memorable event
might be less susceptible to misinformation effects. Overall, though, Loftus and Palmer
demonstrate that even memories for relatively straightforward and recent events can be
altered by postevent information.
5. There are many potential sources of postevent information that could influence a
witness’ memory. Conversations with other eyewitnesses at the scene could lead to
misinformation effects. Media reports about a crime could influence witnesses by
presenting them with information they did not observe firsthand. In the present studies,
question wording influences witness memory, which suggests that police investigators
can often be the source of biasing postevent information. Attorneys who prepare
witnesses for testimony at trial might also—intentionally or unintentionally—provide
them with additional information about the event that could be influential. In other
words, there are myriad possible sources of postevent information, demonstrating the
importance of interviewing witnesses as soon as possible after an event, before they are
exposed to external information or opinions that can bias them.
6. Hindsight bias is the tendency to feel as if you “knew it all along.” After the fact, it
often seems obvious why events turned out as they did, primarily because people become
aware of information they did not know beforehand. In this manner, hindsight bias is
similar to the present studies in that it involves incorporation of new information into
existing knowledge structures. These reconstructive processes are potentially relevant
any time people make judgments about others (e.g., attribution, stereotypes and
prejudice) or interact with one another (e.g., intimate relationships, conformity). Social
memory is not a videotape. We do not remember everything about our social
interactions, but rather encode some details and fill in other blanks when we need to.
This is why we so often rely on schemas and heuristics in navigating the social world
around us. In attributing the behaviors of others, in making judgments about an
individual based on group membership, in gauging the norms of a situation and adjusting
our own behavior accordingly, we often make use of new information and incorporate it
into existing memories and beliefs. These tendencies are very similar to the processes
described in the present studies.
Links For Further Investigation
Eyewitness memory remains one of the most popular research topics in the growing field
of psychology and law. One of the leading researchers in this area is Gary Wells of Iowa
State University. You can find Wells’ website at
http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/homepage.htm. It includes a wide
range of research links, popular media articles, study materials, frequently asked
questions, and real-life case descriptions.
The popular media have also become very interested in eyewitness performance in recent
years. For a PBS Frontline episode guide on how eyewitness identification can go
wrong—including interactive case links, photos, and an analysis of the role of DNA
evidence at trial—go to www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/. You can also
check out
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/sniper_eyewitness021016.html for an
article on “How to be a better eyewitness,” which includes a discussion of witnesses from
the D.C. area sniper shootings.