A number of studies on cross-racial identifications have been undertaken using standard facial recognition paradigms, but modest attention has been paid to the effect of cross-racial identifications in juxtaposition with other influencing factors. The present article examines the impact of race in conjunction with emotionality and question-related variables on descriptive eyewitness recall accuracy. Findings from a controlled experiment (staged crime) with a total of 106 participants from a Midwestem university suggest that descriptive eyewitness recall was influenced by the examined variables-emotionality, race, and type of question asked. Moreover, it was found that eyewitnesses tended to pay more attention to weapons and vehicles during a mock scenario than to perpetrator behavior, perpetrator description, and other information surrounding the event. The results add further evidence to the bulk of literature suggesting that the current usage of eyewitness testimony by the legal system is far from ideal. It is suggested that the high emphasis currently placed on eyewitness accounts be reviewed and reconsidered. Systemic implications of the results are also addressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ainsworth, P. B. (1998). Psychology, law and eyewitness testimony. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
2.
Ainsworth, P. B. (2002). Psychology andpolicing. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
3.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature ofprejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Vol. 2. Advances in research and theory (pp. 89-195). New York, NY: Academic Press.
5.
Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1985). The role of experience and contact in the recognition of faces of own-and other-race persons. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 139-156.
6.
Burke, A., Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (1992). Remembering emotional events. Memory and Cognition, 20, 277-290.
7.
Cavanagh, M. E. (2004). Policing within a professionalframework. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
8.
Christianson, S. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284-309.
9.
Christianson, S. A., Engelberg, E., & Holmberg, U. (1998). Avancerad Forhors-och Intervjumetodik [Advanced interrogation and interview methodology]. Boras, Sweden: Natur och Kultur.
10.
christianson, S. A., & Wentz, G. (2002). Brott och minne [Crime and memory]. Stockholm, Sweden: Natur och Kultur.
11.
City of Moorhead. (2002). City demographics. Retrieved August 22,2004, from http://www.ci.moorhead.mn.us.
12.
Clifford, B. R., & Scott, J. (1978). Individual and situational factors in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 352-359.
13.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
14.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O'Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behavior, 1, 113-134.
15.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1984). The influence of arousal on reliability of testimony. In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 235-251). Chichester, England: Wiley.
16.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
17.
Elliott, E. S., Wills, E. J., & Goldstein, A. G. (1973). The effects of discrimination training on the recognition of white and oriental faces. Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 2, 71-73.
18.
Fisher, R. P. (1995). Interviewing victims and witnesses of crime. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 732-734.
19.
Fiske, S. (1998). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.) (pp. 357-411). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
20.
Fiske, S., & Depret, E. (1996). Control, interdependence, and power: Understanding social cognition in its social context. European Review of Social Psychology, 7, 31-61.
21.
Garry, M., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Pseudomemories without hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis. 42, 363-378.
22.
Gross, S. R. (1987). Loss of innocence: Eyewitness identification and proof of guilt. Journal of Legal Studies16,398-399.
23.
Hall, D. F., Loftus, E. F., & Tousignant, J. P. (1984). Postevent information and changes in recollection for a natural event. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 124-141). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
25.
Henderson, J. (1999). Memory andforgetting. New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
Lindholm, T. (1998). Intergroup biases and eyewitness testimony. The Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 710-710.
27.
Lindsey, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Connor, F. (1989). Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333-340.
28.
Lindsey, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and between situations?Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
29.
Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology7, 560-572.
30.
Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Loftus, E. F. (1992). When a lie becomes memory's truth: Memory distortion after exposure to misinformation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 121-123.
32.
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about weapon focus. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62.
33.
Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Bums, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into visual memory. In L. S. Wrightsman, C. E. Willis, & S. M. Kassin (Eds.), On the witness stand: Vol. 2. Controversies in the courtroom (pp. 157-177). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
34.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstructions of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.
35.
Loftus, E. F., & Zanni, G. (I1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86-88.
36.
MacLin, O. H., MacLin, M. K., & Malpass, R. S. (2001). Race, arousal, attention, exposure, and delay: An examination of factors moderating face recognition. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law7, 134-152.
37.
Malpass, R. S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other race. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330-334.
38.
Matlin, W. M. (1999). Psychology (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
39.
Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law7, 3-35.
40.
Onion, A. (2002, October 16). Capturing memory: Being a good eyewitness can mean carrying a pen, resisting instincts. ABC News.com
41.
Penrod, S. D., Fulero, S. M., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: The state ofthe law and the science. Behavioral Sciences andthe Law, 13, 229-259.
42.
Pickel, K. L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of weapon focus. Memory, 6, 277-295.
43.
Pinizzotto, A. J., Davis, E. F., & Miller, C. F. (2000). Officers' perceptual shorthand. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69(7), 1-6.
44.
Rains, G. D. (2001). Principles of human neuropsychology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
45.
Reber, A. S. (1995). Dictionary ofpsychology. London, England: Penguin Books.
46.
Ross, M., & Buehler, R. (1994). Creative remembering. In U. Neisser & R. Fivush (Eds.), The remembering self: Construction and accuracy in the self-narrative (pp. 205-235). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Samaha, J. (1999). Criminal procedure. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
48.
Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin100, 139-156.
49.
Solso, R. L. (2001). Cognitive psychology (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
50.
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
51.
Stemnberg, R. J. (1999). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
52.
Weingardt, K. R., Toland, H. K., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Reports of suggested memories: Do people truly believe them? In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 3-26). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Weisburd, D., & Britt, C. (2003). Statistics in criminaljustice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson.
54.
Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
55.
Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification?American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
56.
Wells, G. L. (1995). Scientific study of witness memory: Implications for public and legal policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 726-731.
57.
Wells, G. L. (2004). What is wrong with the Manson v. Braithwaite test of eyewitness identification accuracy? Retrieved August 22, 2004, from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/Mansonproblem.pdf
58.
Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsey, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
59.
Wells, G. L., Lindsey, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
60.
Wrightsman, L. S. (2000). Forensic psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
