#3MExpTask

False memory for eyewitness testimonies has become more of a problem in the last decade. For example, The Ronald Cotton Case was a case involving a woman named Jennifer Thompson-Cannino and Ronald Cotton. This case addressed an assailant that had broke into Jennifer's apartment and sexually assaulted her, then after, later that night had attacked another woman who was a 22-year-old college student. Jennifer had conducted an interview on 60 minutes stating that "Through what was happening I was just trying to pay attention to detail, so that if I survived... I'd be able to help the police catch him." Jennifer being an eye-witness in the case, spotted Ronald out of a photo line-up, giving 100 percent affirmation that Cotton was the perpetrator. Cotton was then convicted in January 1985, on one count of rape and one count of burglary. Soon after a second trial was held, Cotton was later convicted of both violations and two counts of theft and was sentenced to life + 54 years in prison. However, in the spring of 1995, the samples of semen DNA from the State Bureau of Investigation evidence did not match Cotton. While Cotton was in prison, another prisoner had confessed to the crime to a fellow inmate. In May of 1995, the defense and the district attorney motioned to have all charges against Ronald Cotton dismissed.

For this experiement we were suppose to conduct a similar study on how our false memory tricks us into thinking that we wrote down the correct words. When in reality, we group words together thinking that the word was there. In this exercise, I had a couple volunteers who I read two lists of words and had them regurgitate how many words they can.

• Read the following list first:

thread

pin

eye

injection

syringe

sewing

sharp

point

hurt

knitting

prick

thimble

haystack

pain 

• After you are done reading the list, ask them to write down as many words as they can remember on a piece of paper. 

• Following which, read the second list of words:

                Bed                      Drowse

Awake                 Nurse

Tired                    Sick

Dream                 Lawyer

Wake                   Medicine

Snooze                Health

Snore                   Hospital

Rest                     Dentist

Blanket                Physician

Doze                    Patient

Slumber               Stethoscope

Nap                      Curse

Peace                   Clinic

Yawn                    Surgeon 

• Once they completed writing words from both the lists, I first ask them if they have the word “aardvark” in their first list. Secondly, I asked them if they wrote down the word “needle” in their first list. Further on, I then asked if they have the words “doctor” or “sleep” in their second list of words. 

• I also asked then if they were able to recall these words, demonstrating the "serial position effect" taking the first list as an example. 

pain (last item)

thread (first item)

point (middle item)

sharp (middle item) 

Typically, more individuals write the first and last items to show the “primacy” and “recency” effects.  

My results from this exercise included four volunteers

• My mom
• My dad
• My sister
• My friend

I asked them if they wrote down the word "aardvark":

• Response 1: No
• Response 2: No
• Response 3: No
• Response 4: No

I then asked then if they wrote down the word "needle" in the first list:

• Response 1: No
• Response 2: Yes
• Response 3: No 
• Response 4: Yes

Then I asked my volunteers if they wrote down the word "doctor" or "sleep" in the second list:

• Response 1: No
• Response 2: Yes, sleep
• Response 3: Yes, sleep
• Response 4: Yes, sleep

Lastly, I asked them if they were able to recall these last few words: 

• Pain(last word): 
• Response 1: No
• Response 2: No
• Response 3: Yes
• Response 4: No
• Thread(first word):
• Response 1: No
• Response 2: No 
• Response 3: No 
• Response 4: Yes
• Point(middle word)
• Response 1: No
• Response 2: No
• Response 3: No
• Response 4: No
• Sharp(middle word)
• Response 1: No
• Response 2: No
• Response 3: Yes
• Response 4: No

For this very reason concluding from my data, this is a completly logical reason as to why eye-witness tesimonies are no longer reliable for evidence based cases. According to Scienfic American article, Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts, "DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that at least 73 percent of the 239 convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony." This percentage is crazy to think about when understanding how the brain works and what it does to compensate for the situations around you. 

Sources:

Arkowitz, H. and Lilienfeld, S. (2018) Scientific American. Do the “Eyes” Have It?., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/