Lecturer: Dr. Benjamin Amponsah, Dept. of Psychology, UG, Legon Contact Information:

Transcription

1 Lecturer: Dr. Benjamin Amponsah, Dept. of Psychology, UG, Legon Contact Information: College of Education School of Continuing and Distance Education 2014/ /2017

2 Session Overview We discuss constructive nature of memory, an idea that departs from laboratory work and emphasizes on the use of global knowledge to construct the tobe-remembered information. Several of these reconstructions are found in memories of autobiographic, flashbulb memories, eye and earwitness testimonies. Slide 2

3 Session Objectives At the end of the session, the student will Describe autobiographic memory Understand the complexities in flashbulb memories Discuss memory and eyewitness testimony Evaluate the evidence of the nature of recovered memories Slide 3

4 Session Outline The key topics to be covered in the session are as follows: Topic One: Autobiographic Memory Topic Two: Sins of Memory Topic Three: Flashbulb Memory Topic Four: Eye/ Earwitness Testimony Slide 4

5 Topic One AUTOBIOGRAPHIC MEMORY Slide 5

6 Reading List Ashcraft, M. H. (2006). Cognition (4 th edn.), London: Pearson Education Int. Galotti, K. M. (2004). Cognitive Psychology: In and out of the laboratory (3 rd Edn.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hunt, R. R. & Ellis, H. C. (1999). Fundamentals of Cognitive Psychology (6 th edn.), New York: McGraw-Hill. Willingham, D, B. (2001). Cognition: The thinking animal. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Slide 6

7 Rejection of Laboratory Studies A memory researcher Frederick Bartlett (1932) has rejected the emphasis on laboratory studies of memory. He believes that in the real world, memory largely uses knowledge and schemata (frameworks for organizing information). Bartlett argues that at retrieval time, this general knowledge and organizational information is used to reconstruct the information. Slide 7

8 Rejection of Laboratory Studies In Bartlett s view, participants inadvertently introduced distortions (describing or reporting of something in a way that is inaccurate or misleading) to make the material more credible, rational and more coherent from their own point of view. Embellishment...!! He rejected the idea of LTM as a warehouse where material is stored unchanged until retrieval. He viewed memory as an active and often inaccurate process that encodes and retrieves information so as to make meaning. Slide 8

9 Rejection of Laboratory Studies Neisser, another important psychologist was also sceptical about laboratory studies of memory and considered it to have a limited value in understanding and use of memory in everyday life. Neisser called for the study of how people construct and use memories of their own past experiences, how they remember events of historical significance and how they use memory to plan (prospective memory) and account for everyday experiences. Slide 9

10 Evidence of Construction Autobiographic Memory These are memories of an individual s history. Such memories are constructive. One does not remember exactly what has happened but rather remembers one s construction or reconstruction of what happened. People s autobiographical memories are generally quite good but they are subject to distortions (Rubin, 1996). Slide 10

11 Evidence of Construction Recent work also has illustrated the importance of selfesteem in the formation and recall of autobiographical memory. People with positive self-esteem remember more positive events, whereas people with negative self-esteem remember more negative events (Christensen, Wood, & Barrett, 2003). Slide 11

12 Topic Two SINS OF MEMORY (MEMORY DISTORTIONS) Slide 12

13 Distortions of Memory Memory Distortions People find their memories distorted. For example, just saying something has happened to you makes you more likely to think it really happened, whether or not it did. Schacter (2001) introduces seven specific ways in which distortions occur. He calls them seven sins of memory. The first 3 are sins of omission (involving forgetting) and the last 4 sins of commission (distorted and unwanted recollections). Slide 13

14 The Seven Sins of Memory 1. Transience - the decreasing accessibility of memory over time. Memory fades quickly. Things happen for a short time and quickly disappears. 2. Absent mindedness lapses of attention and forgetting to do things. People sometimes brush their teeth after already having brushed them or they enter a room looking for something, only to discover that they have forgotten what they were looking for. Slide 14

15 The Seven Sins of Memory 3. Blocking temporary inaccessibility of stored information e.g., tip-of-the-tongue syndrome. 4. Misattribution attribution of memories to incorrect sources 5. Suggestibility incorporating misinformation into memory due to misleading questions Slide 15

16 The Seven Sins of Memory 6. Bias retrospective distortions produced by current knowledge and beliefs 7. Persistence Unwanted recollections that people can t forget e.g. intrusive memories of post traumatic disorder Slide 16

17 Effect of Distortion MEMORY DISTORTION EFFECT Several studies have shown false memory and distortion effects given the following conditions. Repeated exposure to misinformation increases memory reports of the misinformation (Mitchell & Zaragoza, 1996) Repeated retrieval of misinformation strengthens later recall and confidence about the misinformation (Roediger, Jacoby & McDermott, 1996). Slide 17

18 Effect of Distortion Imagining that something happened increases later memory reports that it actually did happen a situation called imagination inflation (Libby, 2003). There is a social aspect to false memory as well. Suggestions from others can make you more certain that an event happened or that you remember it (Meade & Roediger, 2002). According to Roediger, Meade and Bergman (2001: 365) false memories are contagious; one person s memory can be infected by another person s errors. These results go to point out that memory is suggestible. Slide 18

19 Topic Three FLASHBULB MEMORY Slide 19

20 Definition of Flashbulb A flashbulb memory is a very rich, very detailed memory that is encoded when something that is emotionally intense happens to you. Roger Brown and James Kulik (1977) were the first to conduct such a study. They asked participants to remember where they were when they heard that President John Kennedy had been assassinated. Participants reported surprisingly detailed memories; participants were confident that they could remember details such as what they were wearing, exactly where they were, who told them, the words that were used, and so on. They called this phenomenon flashbulb memories. Slide 20

21 Characteristics of Flashbulb Flashbulb memories have three special characteristics. They are: complete, accurate and immune to forgetting. To form such sharp memories there must be high level of surprise and high level of emotional arousal. People form such memories when they happen but the question is are they as complete, accurate and immune to forgetting with passage of time? Slide 21

22 Characteristics of Flashbulb Several experiments conducted in flashbulb memories converge on the conclusion that there is no need to postulate a special mechanism to account for flashbulb memories. We may remember some events quite well because of its special characteristics but flashbulb memories do not seem to have the special properties they were first thought to have. They are not complete, accurate and immune to forgetting. They are simply constructions like other memories. Slide 22

23 Topic Four EYE/EARWITNESS TESTIMONY Slide 23

24 Importance Eyewitness Testimony We are going to look at the phenomenon of eyewitness /earwitness testimonies as constructed processes. We will look at several laboratory studies to see how reliable they are or otherwise. This is a subject of much interest to the public especially those concerned with the administration of justice and in reposing confidence in our colleagues. Eyewitness testimony is simply a narrative memory of a personally witnessed event. Slide 24

25 Classical Cases of Errors in Testimony Now consider the following cases. CASE 1 A Catholic priest awaited trial for several armed robberies in Delaware in Seven witnesses had identified him as the gentleman bandit, referring to the robber s polite manners and elegant clothes. During the trial, many witnesses identified the priest as the one who had confessed to the robberies. Suddenly, however, the trial was halted; another man had confessed to the robberies (Loftus & Ketcham, 1991). Slide 25

26 Classical Cases of Errors in Testimony Such reports have led psychologist to question the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Mistakes in eyewitness testimony account for more than half of all cases of mistaken conviction (Wells & Bradfield,1999). Between 2,000 and 10,000 people are wrongfully convicted each year in the United States on the basis of faulty eyewitness testimony (Loftus & Ketcham, 1991). Slide 26

27 Classical Cases of Errors in Testimony Studies of more than 1000 known wrongful convictions have pointed to errors in eyewitness identification as being the single largest factor leading to those false convictions (Wells, 1993: 554). What proportion of eyewitness identifications are mistaken? The answer to the question varies widely (from as low as a few percent to greater than 90%; Wells, 1993) but even the most conservative estimates of this proportion suggest frightening possibilities. Slide 27

28 Classical Cases of Errors in Testimony CASE II Think about a man named Timothy. In 1986, he was convicted for brutally murdering a mother and her two young daughters. He was then sentenced to die, and for 2 years and 4 months, Timothy lived on death row. Although the physical evidence did not point to Timothy, eyewitness testimony placed him near the scene of the crime at the time of the murder. Subsequently, it was discovered that a man who looked like Timothy was a frequent visitor to the neighbourhood of the murder victims and Timothy was given a second trial and was acquitted (Dolan, 1995). Slide 28

29 Classical Cases of Errors in Testimony These show that there are serious potential problems of wrongful convictions when using eyewitness testimony as the sole or even the primary basis for convicting accused people of crimes. Slide 29

30 Determinants Some Determinant factors Eyewitness testimony is often a powerful determinant of whether a jury will convict an accused person. The effect is pronounced if eyewitness appears highly confident of their testimony. Line-ups can lead to faulty conclusions (Wells, 1993). Eyewitness assume that the perpetrator is in the line-up. This may be wrong. When the perpetrator of a staged crime was not in a line-up, participants were susceptible to naming someone other than the perpetrator as the culprit. In this way, they can recognize someone in the line-up as having committed the crime this is called risky bias. Slide 30

31 Determinants Eyewitness identification is particularly weak when identifying people of other race (Pezdek, Blandon-Gitlin & Moore, 2003). Evidence suggests that this is not a result of problems of remembering stored faces of people from other races, but rather, of encoding these faces (Walker & Tanaka, 2003). People are also influenced by post-event information when recalling an experience. Children are not exempted (Rovee-Collier & Associates, 1993). Slide 31

32 Loftus and Palmer s Experiment Case III Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed students a film of a traffic accident depicting two cars colliding at an intersection. At the end of the film, they were asked questions about what they had seen. Among the questions was one asking how fast the cars were estimated to be travelling at the time of the accident? The wording of this question was varied, with some being asked, how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? Slide 32

33 Loftus and Palmer s Experiment While others were given more suggestive wordings, (e.g., how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? ). The results showed that those who had been given the smashed into wording, estimated significantly faster speeds than those given the hit version of the question. A week later, they were asked whether they recalled seeing any broken glass after the accident. There was no broken glass in the film, but twice as many respondents in the smashed into condition reported seeing it than those in the hit condition. Slide 33

34 Circumstances that may Lead to False Testimony Some investigators have argued that psychologists need to know a great deal more about the circumstances that impair eyewitness testimony before impugning such testimony before a jury (McKenna et al., 1992). Misinformation Effect Errors in eyewitness testimony can often be traced to the misinformation effect. In misinformation effect, people first view an event and afterward they are given misleading information about the event; later on, they mistakenly recall the misleading information, rather than the event they actually saw (Zaragoza et al., 1997). Slide 34

35 Circumstances that may Lead to False Testimony The information may also be affected by proactive interference - having trouble recalling new material because previously learned old material keeps interfering with new memories. The misinformation effect resembles another kind of interference called retroactive interference - having trouble recalling old memories. Suppose that an eyewitness saw a crime and then a lawyer supplied some misinformation while asking a question. The misinformation effect can be partly traced to faulty source monitoring (source misattribution) - inability to remember the original source of a memory (Schacter et al., 1998). Slide 35

36 Summary Summary Memory does not consist of a list of facts stored in intact form and ready to be replayed like a videotape. Rather, we construct a memory by combining and blending information from a variety of sources. Slide 36

37 Factors Affecting Accuracy Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony Variety of factors influence whether eyewitness is accurate. Some of these influence accuracy at the time of encoding, whereas others operate at the time of retrieval. Some interesting factors: Errors are more likely if the witness s attention has been distracted at the time of the event. For example, if a robber is holding a gun, eyewitnesses are likely to focus on the gun rather than the details of the robber s face, a phenomenon called weapon focus (Baddeley, 1999). Slide 37

38 Factors Affecting Accuracy Errors are more likely if the misinformation is plausible. If the event seems consistent with other similar experiences. Errors are more likely if there is social pressure. People make many errors in eyewitness testimony if they have been pressured to provide a specific answer. (For example: Exactly when did you first see the suspect? ). In contrast, the testimony is more accurate when people are allowed to report whatever they choose to say. Errors are more likely if eyewitnesses have been given positive feedback. Slide 38

39 Improving Testimony Improving Eyewitness Testimony One way to improve eyewitness testimony is not to rely on sources if it is possible. Report immediately after the incident to avoid distortion of memory, especially, retroactive interference. To emphasis on issues that are not clear from those that are clear. Confidence in reporting what was seen and not what was heard. Be watchful about your own biases and prejudices. Slide 39

40 Earwitness Testimony Earwitness Testimony Most of the research on witness testimony focuses on eyewitness testimony. Several studies have now examined earwitness testimony or judgments about an individual s voice and other auditory characteristics. In legal cases, suspects have been imprisoned and even executed on the basis of earwitness testimony (Read & Craik, 1995). Slide 40

41 Earwitness Testimony We saw evidence that people make mistakes in eyewitness testimony. Research suggests that earwitness testimony is even less accurate. After delay of a few days, most people cannot recognize a stranger s voice they heard earlier, unless it is somehow distinctive (Hammersley & Read, 1996). It is even more difficult when people disguise their voices they are even more difficult to recognize (Hammersley & Read, 1996). Slide 41

42 Earwitness Testimony Many researchers have also identified some interesting parallels between earwitness testimony and eyewitness testimony. For instance, people s confidence about their earwitness testimony is only weakly correlated with their accuracy (Read & Craik, 1995). There is also a parallel to the own-race bias phenomenon. In earwitness testimony, people have difficulty distinguishing among voices from a different geographic region other than their own (Hammersley & Read, 1996). In general, we are usually concerned with recognizing the voices of people we know. We are more accurate in identifying these voices. Slide 42

43 Sample Questions Why do we say memory is constructed? Describe autobiographic memory. Sins of memory reflect distortions of our experiences. Explain, Are there any similarities between eyewitness and earwitness testimonies? Evaluate the evidence for the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Slide 43

44 References Baddeley, A.D. (1999). Essentials of human memory. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press. Barlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R., & Kulik, K. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, Christensen, T. C., Wood, J. V., & Barrett, L. F. (2003). Remembering everyday experience through the prism of self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (1), Slide 44

45 References Libby, I. K. (2003). Imagery perspective and source monitoring in imagination inflation. Memory & Cognition, 31, Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense. New York:Tt. Martin s. Loftus, E.F., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. American Psychologist, 35, Pezdek, K., & Prull, M. (1993). Fallacies in memory for conversations: Reflections on Clarence Thomas, Anita and the like. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, Hill Slide 45

46 References Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. III. ( 2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Memory & Cognition, 30, Mitchell, K. J., & Zaragoza, M. S. (1996). Repeated exposure to suggestion and false memory: The role of contextual variability. Journal of Memory and language, 35, Slide 46

47 References Read, D., & Craik, F. I. M. (1995).Earwitness identification: Some influences on voice recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, Roediger, H. L. III, & Guynn, M. J. (1996). Retrieval processes. In E. L. Bjork & R. A.Bjork (Eds.), Memory (pp ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, Slide 47

48 References Rovee-Collier, C. K., Borza, M. A., Adler, S. A., & Boller, K. (1993). Infants eyewitness testimony: Effects of postevent information on a prior memory representation. Memory & Cognition, 21, Schacter, D. L., Norman, K. A., & Koustaal, W. (1998). The cognitive neuroscience of constructive memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, Wells, G. L. & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses recollections: Can the postidentification-feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, Slide 48

49 References Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the mind, and the past. New York: Basic Books. Zaragoza, M. S., Lane, S.M., Ackil, J.L., & Chambers, K. L. (1997). Confusing real and suggested memories: Source monitoring and eyewitness suggestibility. In N. L. Stein, P.A. Ornstein, B; Tversky, & C. Brainerd (Eds.), Memory for everyday and emotional events (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Slide 49