Misconceptions Research Project: The Reality of Memory
Students in Dr. Emily Stark’s Social Psychology course complete a research project where they identify a misconception related to psychology, conduct both background research and an empirical project measuring belief in that misconception, and summarize their findings in a short blog post paper. The goal of this assignment is to build student research skills as well as showcase the importance of thinking critically about information encountered in the media or in popular culture. This post shares one of the final blog papers created for this project. For more information on this project, just use the contact page to contact Dr. Stark.
By Carina Dorr and Grace Oberle
A common misconception in psychology is about the durability of our memories and memory formation. Many believe that memories are an exact recording of the past. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Our memories are malleable and can be shaped, guided and changed by outside influences and even by our own recall processes. Recall and the reality of a memory can be drastically different, and it is important to understand that. We use our memories every day and we rely heavily on their stability. For example, in society we place a lot of value on the power of an eyewitness testimony in a court of law. But should we?
Research suggests that due to the plasticity of memory, eyewitness testimony may not prove accurate, reliable, or the most convincing evidence to a jury (Chew, 2018). One real-world example of this occurred during a rape charge in 1985 (Ryan, 2015). A White woman claimed that a Black man who worked at a restaurant near her broke into her apartment and raped her at gun point. The jury found the man guilty and sentenced him to 50 plus years in prison. Later while in prison, the true perpetrator was identified via DNA evidence, and the man who was originally convicted was let go (Ryan, 2015). According to police reports, the woman took a long time looking over mugshots to eventually identify the rapist and was quite unsure in her choice (Ryan, 2015). Research by Seale-Carlisle et al. (2019) concluded that victims who had a long response latency and low confidence in their initial decision could not be considered a reliable source of evidence. However, in this case, the victim exuded confidence at the court hearing, and the jury never witnessed the victim’s original indecision (Ryan, 2015). Therefore, the confidence seen by the jury could have had a major role in the wrongful conviction of the defendant.
There has been ample research done on the permanence of memory and the reliability of using eyewitness accounts during a court trial. One study looked at the level of accuracy of eyewitness statements in a lab and field study by measuring the response latency and confidence level of the participants in identifying the perpetrator (Seale-Carlisle, et al., 2019). During the lab study, the participants watched videos of a crime, then after some time chose the perpetrator in a line-up of potential suspects. From there, the response time was measured and questions regarding the confidence level were asked. The following study was field based, with similar parameters, but with the caveat that the researchers did not know who the perpetrator was. However, the results from both studies yielded significant, similar results. Overall, the researchers found that initially, the shorter response latency in identification and high level of confidence supported a high accuracy of reliability in eyewitness testimonials (Seale-Carlisle, et al., 2019).
Another study looked at how false memories can be formed when people are presented with false evidence (Wade et al., 2010). In this study participants were paired with a partner (a collaborator in the experiment) and asked to take a test next to each other. If they got an answer correct, they took fake money out of a “bank” between them and if they got it wrong, they had to pay in. Participants then left for about 5-7 hours. When they returned, they were alone and told their partner was not returning because they were suspected of cheating. In reality, the partner was not cheating at all, this is just what the participants were told. One group of participants were told that video evidence existed of the cheating, one group was shown (fabricated) video evidence of their partner cheating, and the last group was not told more. Participants were then asked to sign a statement that indicated they saw their partner cheating and told that if they signed, then further actions would be taken against the partner. It was emphasized that they should only sign if they actually saw their partner cheating. Interestingly, 20% of participants signed the statement saying they saw their partner’s cheat. About 30% of those were from the group of participants that saw the video, 10% were from the group that was told video evidence existed, and about 5% was from the group who was told nothing more than the participant was suspected of cheating (Nash et al., 2010). While not many participants signed the statement saying they saw their partner cheat, it is interesting that any did. It provides some insight into how easy it can be for false memories to be formed and how outside evidence can influence our recall, even after just a few hours.
A survey was created in a Social Psychology course at Minnesota State University Mankato to determine how the public viewed the unwavering steadiness of our memories and the validity of eyewitness testimony in a court of law. Overall, the results indicated that participants strongly disagreed that memories are static and do not change. However, there was much more variability in responses when the participants were asked if eyewitness testimony is very accurate and if it is the most convincing evidence in a court of law
Figure 1. Survey results regarding the misconception that memory is static and does not change. Participants were asked to rate the level they agreed upon the following statements regarding the misconception and its applicability in eyewitness testimony in a court of law.
Is this misconception true? No.
With the understanding of the couple of studies mentioned above, as well as the survey, it is reiterated that memory is NOT static, and it is subject to change and various influences can contribute to those changes. Thus, still begging the question: is eyewitness testimony the most reliable and accurate form of evidence in a trial?
References
Chew, S. L. (2018, August 20). Myth: Eyewitness testimony is the best kind of evidence. Association for Psychological Science - APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html
Ryan, B. (2015, October 30). Eyewitness testimony is unreliable... or is it? The Marshall Project. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/10/30/eyewitness-testimony-is-unreliable-or-isit#:~:text=In%201985%2C%20a%20young%20white,prompting%20the%20jury%20to%20convict
Seale-Carlisle, T. M., Colloff, M. F., Flowe, H. D., Wells, W., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2019). Confidence and response time as indicators of eyewitness identification accuracy in the lab and in the real world. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(4), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.09.003
Wade, K. A., Green, S. L., & Nash, R. A. (2010). Can fabricated evidence induce false eyewitness testimony? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(7), 899-908.