Abstract

Witness testimony plays a crucial role in the legal process. However a witness’s memory can be distorted by memory conformity, which can lead to unfortunate consequences. This report will critique the journal article “Memory Conformity: Can Eyewitnesses Influence Each Other’s Memories for an Event?” and evaluate the historical influence of this article on the field, last will be discussed the value of an article and what difference it had made in the real world.

Summary of the Article

Gabbert et. al. (2003), noticed a lack of research on memory conformity of crime witnesses which led her and the team to examine this issue furthermore and conduct an experiment. 

60 young adults and 60 elderly adults took part in the study, both groups had been tested in memory impairment and cognitive abilities. The participants had been divided into a control group where they were performing all tasks solo and a co-witness group. The co-witness group, divided into pairs had been exposed to short video material. Each member of the pair of participants saw a slightly different video. Two videos had been made of the same event from different angles showing different unique items to the paired witnesses, additionally, the crime had been committed only in one version of the video. After the video participants had to answer questions individually. Then they had time to discuss what they had seen in pairs and at the end report what they had seen from the perspective of a witness. 

The article discusses results and draws the conclusion that 70% of the participants had reported in their testimony items they hadn’t seen and falsely accused a subject. What is more, it is interesting to mention that in the young adult group, 30% of those who had seen a crime after having their discussion, changed their answer and reported the subject as not guilty. That indicates that memory conformity works in both ways. 

The Oklahoma bombing incident in 1995 and an analysis of witness testimony led Gabbert to explore the gap in eyewitness memory studies. Indeed, before Gabbert’s article, there had been a small number of studies in which the conditions of the experiment were far from real life. For example one of the studies on the topic by Wright et al. (2000) shows the indication of memory conformity in tested participants but the method which was used is not ideal and doesn’t correlate with the real-life police procedure of eyewitness interrogation. Other studies lack participants’ life interactions and have other environmental issues. Which leads this report to the next part where the method of the chosen article will be examined and compared to previous studies.

Methods Used

As mentioned in a previous paragraph, Gabbert improved the method of research to bring conditions closer to a real-life environment. For instance, a big change compared to previous studies is a real-life discussion of a crime, between eyewitnesses. In previous studies, inversely there was no or minimal interaction between witnesses. What is more, researchers used questionaries as a method to present information or they did it by revealing answers of other, fictional, witnesses. For example in the study by Betz et al. (1996) participants needed to read a story and pass a test with control questions about certain details from the story. Shortly after they had been given answers from fictional participants and had been asked to pass a cued recall test. In another similar study by Luus And Wells. (1994), the participants didn’t interact with each other at all, moreover, they only heard what the answers of their co-witnesses were, from the experimenter in a brief form. Such a method allowed to see a change in the confidence of eyewitnesses’ answers but couldn’t examine the effect of altering each other’s memory due to the lack of interaction between eyewitnesses. These laboratory conditions lack ecological validity. Thus they can’t be reliable as a source. 

In contrast to these studies, in the chosen study co-witness participants after watching the video had time to discuss with each other and share information. Results clearly show the effect of memory conformity because participants have recalled false memory of unique details only their partners could have known. Furthermore, the study addresses the duality of memory conformity and points out that 30 % of participants from the group which saw a crime falsely reported a subject as not guilty. These findings raised the important question, of what causes memory conformity. Additionally, contrary to previous studies, Gabbert illuminated the task demand influence by relying on the method of free-recall memory requests and open-ended questions. The study debates that informational influence could be a possible cause of memory conformity. Gabbert’s study makes it possible to look at the problem from a more practical angle which brought future researchers to explore solutions to the problem. 

In modern studies in this field there is a visible tendency of using a similar method, where participants discuss an event. Such a method gives better results and allows experimenters to search for a solution for memory conformity issues in a closer real-life environment. 

Critique of Developments in this Field of Research

Gabbert’s study showed the importance of researching eyewitness memory conformity topics. After Gabbert, numerous studies have been written. Modern research also uses the method of real-life discussions. Besides that, there has been developed an improved way of bringing the conditions of experiments closer to real-life conditions. Some studies use the MORI technique, where participants watch one video at the same time, the only difference from the Gabbert method is that they watch the polarised video in special polarised glasses. That technique makes it possible to witness the same event simultaneously, but allows seeing different details, such as colours or some items. This is so far the closest laboratory condition to reality (Mori, 2003).

Another notable development in the field is the exploration of possible solutions. Several studies argue that enhancing self-perceived credibility could decrease the credibility of information given by the co-witness, thus minimising memory conformity. (French et al. 2011). One more solution has been discussed, Paterson et al. (2009) made a series of experiments and confirmed that warning about misleading information doesn’t alter the memory conformity effect, however in another research by Bodner et al. (2009) the results showed that memory conformity is less pronounced if participants are instructed to ignore co-witness information and only rely on their memory. In addition to that, RSA is another method that can become a possible solution to the problem. In experiments by Szpitalak and Polczyk (2016) results show that reinforced self-affirmation (RSA) can reduce interrogative suggestibility. 

RSA is a relatively new approach to the problem and is not fully researched, some studies  are in the development state. RSA has been proven as a working method for reducing other memory distortion, but not in the co-witness case. For example, a brilliant paper by Kekus et al. (2019) shows a promising plan for investigating the application of the RSA technique in the co-witness situation. Results are planned to be published in the year 2022. 

The development of the field is significant. Most latest studies are focused on finding the solution to the problem. Also, the conditions of experiments have been improved to be more realistic. 

It is interesting to see such a positive improvement in the theoretical area as well. Latest studies argue that RSA and enhanced self-confidence can positively influence memory distortion issues. These findings are meaningful not only in the criminology field but in other spheres as well. Nurturing and a positive approach to human treatment is a modern tendency. A more humane approach is more fruitful in any area of work. Especially in the criminology field, where brutality has been a cause of many mistakes for a long time. 

Application to Real-world Settings

Witness testimony is a crucial part of collecting evidence. This research has shown that the potential danger of witness memory conformity is – to falsely accuse a subject of a crime he/she hadn’t committed or free a guilty person. In real-world settings, these findings can be applied to modifying the police procedure of collecting testimony to make it more reliable. If witnesses have discussed the crime between each other the police shouldn’t rely strongly on their testimonies. 

Nowadays, taking into account all future studies after Gabbert, several techniques can be used in obtaining a reliable testimony by witnesses. What is more the latest results in that field can be applied in other spheres. For example, lifting confidence in the knowledge of students could prevent them from relying on their classmates’ answers and help to develop a more independent studying process. Several studies showed positive results in an increased educational success rate, through the development of students’ self-confidence and critical thinking (O’Flaherty & Costabile, 2020). These techniques could be used in schools to help in the development of critical thinking from an early age.  

Enhancing self-confidence also could help people to think critically on their own and not rely on external information as much. For example, people would be less likely to believe in propaganda, which is very important in modern days’ reality. A self-confident person has a better understanding of his/her values and can better articulate them. Another issue is the non-flexibility of a mind of a not confident person. A self-confident person would have no problem investigating opposing opinions, in contrast to a person whose confidence in their opinion has been shaken. Those individuals tend to talk to people with the same opinion in order to bring back confidence. Thus they stay biased and closed off from the new information (Brodbeck, 1956). 

Conclusion

The effect of memory conformity in eyewitness testimony is a serious issue in the criminology field. That problem was neglected and under-researched for a long time. Gabbert was one of several psychologists who started to examine that issue more in-depth. In contrast to her contemporaries, her method had greater ecological validity and significant results which proved that memory conformity can happen both ways. That raised attention to the issue, subsequently more studies have been written. Dozens of research papers can be found on the topic, moreover, there are several ongoing experiments studying a possible way of dealing with the issue. What is more, some of the current solutions such as RSA have been proven to work in decreasing memory distortion in other cases. Enhanced self-confidence has been proven as a good approach to preventing the likelihood of memory distortion caused by social conformity. Some findings can be applied even in other spheres. 

Additionally, Gabbert’s method was revolutionary at the time and showed the importance of ecological validity, later it had been improved and the MORI technique had been created.
All in all, the research is outstanding, with the original method and its theoretical discussion having sparked many new studies in the field, which resulted in the development of several methodical techniques and solutions which are used in real-life settings. 

Consequently, Gabbert’s research has great value historically and scientifically.

Reference List

Betz, A., Skowronski, J., Ostrom, T. M. (1996). Shared realities: social influence and stimulus memory. Social Cognition 14, 113–140. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1521/soco.1996.14.2.113

Bodner, G. E., Musch, E., & Azad, T. (2009). Reevaluating the potency of the memory conformity effect. Memory & Cognition, 37(8), 1069–1076. https://doi.org/10.3758/mc.37.8.1069 

Brodbeck M. (1956). The Role of Small Groups in Mediating the Effects of Propaganda. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 52(2). 166-170. doi:10.1037/h0042654

French, L., Garry, M., & Mori, K. (2011). Relative – Not absolute – Judgments of credibility affect susceptibility to misinformation conveyed during discussion. Acta Psychologica, 136(1), 119– 128. DOI10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.10.009

Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied  Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1784 

Kękus, M., Chylinska, K., Szpitalak, M., Polczyk, R., Ito, H., Mori, K., Barzykowski, K. (2019). Reinforced self-affirmation as a method for reducing eyewitness memory conformity: An experimental examination using a modified MORI technique. Appl Cognit Psychol, 34, 1197–1206. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3685 

Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.714

Mori, K. (2003). Surreptitiously projecting different movies to two subsets of viewers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 599–604. https://0-doi-org.serlib0.essex.ac.uk/10.3758/BF03195539

O’Flaherty, J., Costabile, M. (2020). Using a science simulation-based learning tool to develop students’ active learning, self-confidence and critical thinking in academic writing, Nurse Education in Practice, 47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102839.

Paterson, H. M., Kemp, R. I., & Forgas, J. P. (2009). Co-witnesses, confederates, and conformity: Effects of discussion and delay on eyewitness memory. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16(1), 112–S124. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13218710802620380 

Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. (2016). Reinforced self-affirmation and interrogative suggestibility. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1081088

Wright, D. B., Self, G., Justice, C. (2000). Memory conformity: exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 189–202. DOI: 10.1348/000712600161781