INTRO

There has been a long debate regarding the capability of witnesses to recollect past events
in an accurate manner and provide reliable testimony. The study by Howe & Knott (2015)
focused on the consequences of the possibility of error in recollecting past events in legal
proceedings. The study presents a brief overview of the history of instances of false memories
that highlight three crucial forensic areas that has made an impact on memory research: children
as eyewitnesses, eyewitness misidentification, and sexual abuse.
The study revisited controversial and prominent trial proceedings during the 1980s and
1990s such as the McMartin Preschool case in 1983 which was the first case in the United States
of its kind to receive significant national media attention. Seven teachers, including the owner of
the preschool were accused of child abuse and satanic ritual abuse which involved seven hundred
children. All charges were eventually dropped against five of the teachers even without going to
trial. The study also revisited the Wee Care Nursery case in 1988. Kelly Michaels was under fire
for allegedly sexually molesting 20 preschool children at the Wee Care Nursery in Maplewood,
New Jersey. Michaels was accused of abusing these children, and even accused of licking peanut
butter off children’s genitals, among other serious rape allegations. On December 1, 1994, the
Prosecutor’s Office have officially dismissed all charges against Michaels. These two cases had
been the most prominent in the scientific community that focused on child eyewitness testimony.
As for Eyewitness Misidentification, the study used the case of Calvin Willis. Willis was tried
and convicted for the rape of a 10-year-old girl. After serving more than 21 years in prison, he
was released from prison for a crime he did not commit.
The study states that the suggestive and coercive method of questioning, the length of the
interrogations, and the repeated interviewing were the factors that caused these false allegations.
The interviewers from the interrogations of both cases repeatedly used questions when the
child’s answer contradicted what the interviewers believed. This caused the children to change
their answers as they deemed their first answer unacceptable. The study shows that this
technique leads to error in children’s recollections of events. Recommendations of effective
ways of conducting interrogations with children include conducting the interview as soon as
possible, and that the interviewers must first explain their role and the purpose of the interview,
as well as allowing open-ended questions in order to elicit information better. In the case of
Eyewitness Misidentification, the study states that what caused the false conviction of Willis was
the inconsistency in the statements of the victims during the investigation. The study states that
while Eyewitness Testimony is compelling evidence in any trial, it is also the greatest cause of
false convictions.

STRESS
In the study of Eyewitness Identification, two factors that are considered to negatively
affect identification performance are stress and arousal at the time of encoding. This creates a
discrepancy from the study of neurobiology in the field of learning and memory which show that
stress and stress hormones are involved in forming enduring memories. This discrepancy can
create causes for concern in the field of research. The study by Sauerland et. al. (2016)
conducted an experiment that aims to account for the state of knowledge in both fields to bridge
this discrepancy and examine the cognitive and physical reactions to stressful experiences.
Further, this study aims to bridge a gap in the current literature by examining the effect of stress
at encoding on identification performance.
127 total participants took part in the experiment. Participants comprised students
(82.1%), people who opted not to indicate their profession (10.1%), people who were employed
(4.1%), those who were under an apprenticeship program (3.3%). The participants were
instructed not to consume any food or drinks, nor engage in physical activity for at least 2 hours
before the first session. The participants were then informed of the aim of the study. However,
they were not informed about the mock crime. Participants with low-stress condition received a
control MAST (Maastricht Acute Stress Test) which is a procedure to induce stress in the
laboratory and is known to elicit robust stress responses. After 15 minutes of engaging in the
MAST, participants were informed that there would be a short break before continuing the task,
and then the second saliva sample was taken. Afterwards, the experimenter excused himself,
which indicates that the saliva samples had been placed in the freezer. Then, a possible target
entered the room for about 1 minute and pretended to be part of the previous participants. The
target took a phone from the desk and left the room. The participants were then instructed to
complete an interview that recalls what they have witnessed. After six to eight days, the
participants went back to the laboratory and were shown a line-up of the thief from the first
session. Then, they were indicated their post-decision confidence on an 11-point scale, with a
“don’t know” option. Finally, the participants were thanked and debriefed.
Beforehand, stress was expected to have a positive effect on eyewitness identification
performance. However, the results from the study showed that stress does not have any
significant effect on identification performance in target-present or target-absent line-ups when
using regression and ROC analysis. An interpretation from the results derived from the study is
that stress has varying effects on face recognition and recall. However, it must be noted that
while the study shows no effect of stress, the same cannot be said on the effect of stress on recall.

RAPPORT BUILDING
Rapport building is developing harmonious relationships with another person and
establishing a level of understanding and acceptance. This is used by Law enforcement officers
in order to aid in gathering information from witnesses. However, in some cases, rapport
building could be a tool in contaminating eyewitness testimony and affect identification
accuracy. The study of Wright et. al. (2015) investigated whether rapport-building, when
combined with false evidence could influence corroboration rates.
Seventy-two students and staff aged 18-56 were assigned as subjects in the study. The
subjects were randomly assigned cells of a Rapport vs No-rapport and Verbal vs. Verbal plus
Visual incriminating evidence, between the design subjects. The first session lasted
approximately 25 minutes. An interview approach was used with a set of 14 basic questions. The
experimenter utilized turn-taking and reciprocity rules of conversation and ensured proper
disclosure. For the no-rapport subjects, the experimenter exhibited a mean and detached
demeanor. If subjects attempted to engage in conversation, she deflected and responded to the
questions in a disinterested manner. Afterwards, the subjects completed an anonymous
evaluation form which served to ensure that the rapport manipulation was effective. The second
session happened approximately 4 hours later. The experimenter followed a careful interview
protocol and maintained rapport manipulation by acting friendly to the rapport subjects, and
otherwise for the no rapport subjects. The experimenter then explained that test subject A
committed a crime and behaved improperly in other experiments. In addition, the experimenter
explained that the video exhibited cheating but that this did not account for a large discrepancy.
The experimenter then explained that the psychology department wanted to impose disciplinary
action on test subject A to prevent cheating in the future tests. Afterwards, the subjects were
asked to wait in a room. Conversations were audio recorded and the test subjects gave their full
consent for these recordings to be inspected and transcribed.
The study found out that rapport-building has the potential in contributing to the
contamination of the testimony of witnesses, affecting eyewitness identification. Specifically, the
study proposes that rapport-building could be a contributory factor to compliance due to
enhanced source validity. Further, the increased rapport increased the test subjects’ perceptions
on the experimenter as being trustworthy and therefore, more credible. Lastly, rapport-building
was found to reap important rewards in police interrogations. Thus, the study suggests
implementing rapport in a more effective way and practitioners should be increasingly aware of
the coercive nature of rapport.

REPEATED LINEUPS AND DELAY

During eyewitness identification, a problem that occurs frequently is when a witness
views a suspect in one venue (e.g. mugshot) and then later, in a physical lineup wherein the
suspect was the only person who was previously viewed. This leads the witness to falsely select
the suspect from the lineup, caused by either misplaced familiarity due to seeing the mugshot
beforehand. The study by Lin et. al. (2019) conducted two experiments that aimed to minimize
these biases through repeated identical lineups, in a way that repeats the targets and fillers, to
determine if such procedure is useful.
In the experiments, 1,787 participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk.
However, only 591 of these completed the sessions. The study used video and lineup materials.
The participants received either target-present or target-absent lineup which consisted of six
people. After general instructions about the experiment, the participants were shown a video of
the target committing a crime and were given the simple instruction of paying attention to the
video. Afterwards, the participants were asked to complete two distractor tasks which were
studying and recalling words, and the lexical decision task.
The results of the study show complex answers to basic questions. Findings showed that
retention interval effects and repeated lineups influence the tendency of a witness to choose from
such lineup. Furthermore, participants were less inclined to choose after a longer initial delay as
opposed to short initial delays. In addition, although participants were less likely to choose from
a first lineup as opposed to a second lineup, accuracy in picking the suspect did not increase.
Further, most choosers have repeated their initial decision during the second lineup identification
although every lineup member was repeated. As for confidence, participants who expressed a
high level of confidence were more likely to make the same choice for a second time than those
who were expressing a lower confidence.
EYEWITNESS CONFIDENCE
Eyewitness confidence is becoming increasingly distrusted in the legal system. The idea
that an eyewitness’ expressed confidence who identified a suspect provides little information as
to identification accuracy is becoming increasingly accepted in the U.S. legal system. The study
by Wixted & Wells (2017) aimed to explain why a disregard for eyewitness confidence is at odds
with previous literature and how it contributes both to wrongful conviction of innocent
individuals, as well as a false acquittal of guilty suspects.
The study documented a trend in the legal system that disregards eyewitness confidence,
with no distinction as to whether these procedures were appropriate. Next, a set of identification
procedures were reviewed such as those that have been developed in laboratory studies and how
these procedures operate in preventing other causes of contaminating eyewitness confidence.
Estimator variables used in the study included race, exposure duration, lighting, stress, retention
interval and weapon focus. These variables affect memory but are beyond the control of the legal
system.
The article concluded that the relationship between confidence and identification
accuracy is sufficiently impressive, and this challenges the initial hypothesis that eyewitness
confidence is generally unreliable. However, the study states that eyewitness could certainly be
unreliable in some circumstances resulting from influences introduced by the legal system
including repeated subject exposure, misinformation, and certain biases. The study states that a
priority for future research is establishing a procedure on collecting a confidence statement from
an eyewitness. A statement taken in the own words of the witness could potentially be beneficial
in the future study that involves variables such as eyewitness testimony and the factors that could
affect its validity and accuracy.

REFERENCES
Howe, M. L., & Knott, L. M. (2015). The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons
from the past and their modern consequences. Memory, 23(5), 633-656.
Lin, W., Strube, M. J., & Roediger, H. L. (2019). The effects of repeated lineups and delay on
eyewitness identification. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 4(1), 1-19.
Sauerland, M., Raymaekers, L. H., Otgaar, H., Memon, A., Waltjen, T. T., Nivo, M., ... &
Smeets, T. (2016). Stress, stress‐induced cortisol responses, and eyewitness
identification performance. Behavioral sciences & the law, 34(4), 580-594.
Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and
identification accuracy: A new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
18(1), 10-65.
Wright, D. S., Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. A. (2015). Encouraging eyewitnesses to falsely
corroborate allegations: Effects of rapport-building and incriminating evidence. Psychology,
Crime & Law, 21(7), 648-660.