Although cognitive psychology has strong theoretical foundations commonly associated with pure research, applied cognitive psychological research has sought to address real-world problems in multiple domains (Donaldson, Berger, & Pezdek, 2012). Furthermore, even pure researchers sometimes discuss the potential application of their findings (e.g., Loftus & Palmer, 1974). The key issue is whether this application is valid.
Cognitive psychological research (CPR) can be conducted in controlled laboratory-settings (e.g., Rivardo et al., 2011) or in the field (e.g., Stevenson, Lee, & Stigler, 1986). However, questions of validity have been raised about both laboratory (e.g., Neisser, 1976) and field (e.g., Banaji & Crowder, 1989) methodologies. Therefore, to bolster the assessment of the validity of CPR, this discussion will be limited to eyewitness-testimony, which has been investigated extensively in both laboratory and field-based settings, has clear potential for real-world application (in the legal-system) and has important implications for society.
Bartlett (1932) argued that people make sense of their world by fitting incoming information into cognitive frameworks of inter-connected, situation-specific preconceptions called schemas, which facilitate reaction in the “quickest and least obstructed” (p. 44) way. However, according to Bartlett, this process can lead to inaccuracies in the reconstruction of memories when experience does not fit into existing schemas. When Bartlett measured participants’ accuracy in re-telling an unfamiliar, unconventional story, he found they often omitted or amended confusing ideas and changed the associated language and concepts to those more familiar and conventional. Bartlett argued this finding had real-world application; most notably in the legal-system. However, his findings are not necessarily applicable to the courtroom because the tasks of recalling an unfamiliar story and a crime are not equivalent and, therefore, the experiment lacked ecological validity.
Bartlett’s (1932) findings were supported by Tuckey and Brewer (2003) whose participants, when shown a video of a simulated bank-robbery, demonstrated significantly higher recall for details consistent with their schemas, and often transformed ambiguous information during memory-reconstruction to achieve congruence. Although the content of the recalled information is more relevant to eyewitness-testimony, the results cannot be applied to the real-world either because there might be differences in the way the memory of watching a video and the memory of experiencing a crime are encoded, stored and retrieved (Flowe, Finklea, & Ebbesen, 2009). One potential difference is due to the effect of stress.
In a meta-analytic review, Deffenbacher, Bornstein, Penrod, and McGorty (2004) found high levels of stress generally impair accuracy of eyewitness recall, suggesting experimental studies might be unrepresentative because real-world crimes invoke greater stress. However, as studies (e.g., Ihlebæk, Løve, Erik Eilertsen, & Magnussen, 2003) have provided evidence that witnessing real-world events produces less-accurate memories than witnessing the same events under laboratory conditions, some (e.g., Loftus, 2003) argue that results from laboratory experiments do have valid relevance as they underestimate the potential for error. Although Flowe et al. (2009) admits this argument could be accurate, they point out the potential for unknown interaction effects to occur in the real-world. Therefore, although the finding that stress impairs recall is reliable in experimental studies, its external validity might not be; Tollestrup, Turtle, and Yuille (1994) argue assessing external validity should accompany examining results obtained in the field.
Based on laboratory findings, field studies should show the stress of experiencing a crime reduces the accuracy of eyewitness-memory. However, Woolnough and MacLeod (2001) conducted a field study in which researchers compared police statements from victims of assault with CCTV footage: eyewitnesses had a 96% accuracy rate! This questioned the assumption that participants of laboratory experiments accurately represent real-world eyewitnesses (who are commonly victims of crime). The researchers suggested victims of highly emotive crimes (e.g. assault) may have enhanced memories akin to the flashbulb memory effect associated with shocking public events. Tollestrup et al. noted that victims of low-arousal crimes (e.g. fraud) tend to show the same inaccuracies in memory as laboratory-based participants, whereas victims of high-arousal crimes do not. This suggests the accuracy of eyewitness testimony can depend on the nature of the crime and whether the eyewitness is a victim or bystander.
Therefore, although experimental CPR can reliably demonstrate factors that might influence eyewitness-testimony, generalising to the legal system requires care.
According to Wells (1978), eyewitness researchers can impact the legal system in two ways; first by providing evidence to undermine (or support) the validity of eyewitness-testimony retrospectively. This is the potential application of evidence discussed thus far, the questionable validity of which has arguably reduced its global impact. For example, Imwinkelried (1996) reports that, in the USA, “each State remains free to fashion its own standard for admitting scientific evidence” (p. 7). Secondly, researchers can impact the legal system by providing evidence to implement procedural changes to minimise inaccuracies in eyewitness testimony. Arguably, these studies have had greater impact because the potential consequences of applying the results are less severe. For example, Steblay (1997) conducted a meta-analysis on the influence of instructions given to eyewitnesses before they participate in a line-up, specifically that the perpetrator may or may not be present. When the instruction was given and the perpetrator was absent, there was a 42% reduction in false identifications, and a negligible (2%) reduction in correct identifications when the perpetrator was present. Furthermore, Steblay, Wells, and Douglass (2014) conducted a meta-analysis on the strong influence that post-line-up, confirming feedback has on the retrospective judgements of eyewitnesses, finding firm evidence to suggest feedback should only be given after the eyewitness’ judgment has been recorded, and that double-blind procedures should be implemented (neither of which have obvious drawbacks). Such research has helped inform the US Department of Justice to construct guidelines for conducting line-ups (Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999), firmly demonstrating the real-world application of CPR.
CPR has been conducted on an abundance of topics, eyewitness-testimony representing but one. Furthermore, this discussion has reviewed a mere fraction of the eyewitness-research, making it impossible to draw conclusions about the general applicability of CPR to the real-world.
However, focussing on eyewitness-testimony exclusively has had the advantage of being able to demonstrate the real-world application of CPR in a clearly-defined setting. Firm evidence exists to show CPR has impacted on the legal-system and, as forensic science has recently discovered that many innocent people have been imprisoned due to inaccurate eyewitness-testimony, this impact is likely to continue to grow. Caution must be taken in applying theories supported exclusively by experimental research as their validity is demonstrably questionable and not always supported by field research. The legal system should consider both types of research and recognise that the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is potentially dependent on the nature of the crime.
References
Banaji, M. R., & Crowder, R. G. (1989). The bankruptcy of everyday memory. American Psychologist, 44(9), 1185-1193. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1185
Bartlett, F. (1932). Remembering: a study in experimental and social psychology Retrieved from http://www.bartlett.psychol.cam.ac.uk/RememberingBook.htm
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687.
Donaldson, S. I., Berger, D. E., & Pezdek, K. (2012). Applied Psychology: New Frontiers and Rewarding Careers: Taylor & Francis.
Flowe, H. D., Finklea, K. M., & Ebbesen, E. B. (2009). Limitations of Expert Psychology Testimony on Eyewitness Identification In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification. USA: Oxford University Press.
Ihlebæk, C., Løve, T., Erik Eilertsen, D., & Magnussen, S. (2003). Memory for a staged criminal event witnessed live and on video. Memory, 11(3), 319-327.
Imwinkelried, E. J. (1996). Commentary. In E. Connors (Ed.), Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science: Case Studies in the Use of DNA Evidence to Establish Innocence After Trial: Diane Publishing Company.
Loftus, E. F. (2003). Make-believe memories. American Psychologist, 58(11), 867.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
Rivardo, M. G., Brown, K. A., Rodgers, A. D., Maurer, S. V., Camaione, T. C., Minjock, R. M., & Gowen, G. M. (2011). Integrating Inattentional Blindness and Eyewitness Memory. North American Journal of Psychology, 13(3), 519-538.
Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21(3), 283.
Steblay, N., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1037/law0000001
Stevenson, H. W., Lee, S.-Y., & Stigler, J. W. (1986). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and American children. Science, 231(4739), 693-699.
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcemen. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments: Cambridge University Press.
Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). How schemas affect eyewitness memory over repeated retrieval attempts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(7), 785-800. doi: 10.1002/acp.906
Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546.
Woolnough, P. S., & MacLeod, M. D. (2001). Watching the birdie watching you: eyewitness memory for actions using CCTV recordings of actual crimes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 395-411.