Eyewitness Memory

One of the lab’s longest standing interests has been understanding the mechanisms that lead to distortions in eyewitness memory. Several of the questions that we have considered can be found in the below FAQ.

Related Questions

What are the differences between real and suggested memory?

For obvious theoretical as well as practical reasons, it is of great interest to know the properties that distinguish real memories from memories that are the product of suggestion. Comparisons between the descriptions of such memories reveal a variety of subtle differences. For example, actual memories tend to include more sensory details (Schooler, Gerhard, & Loftus, 1986; Schooler, Clark, & Loftus, 1988) whereas suggested memories include greater references to cognitive processes (cf. Johnson & Raye, 1981). Despite these aggregate differences, our primary discovery has been that real and suggested memories are often indistinguishable. Untrained judges can only minimally distinguish between them (Schooler et al., 1986), suggested memories are retrieved as quickly and with as much confidence as real memories (Loftus, Donders, Hoffman, & Schooler, 1989), and they are equally likely to be maintained following contradictory information (Loftus, Korf, & Schooler, 1989).

Who is susceptible to misinformation?

The relationship between misinformation effects and individual differences is rather complex (Schooler & Loftus, 1986). For example, we have found that individuals with either the best or the worst memory abilities are particularly susceptible to misinformation (Schooler & Loftus, 1993). This seeming contradiction can be understood, however, when we recognize that the incorporation of misinformation into memory requires two opposite memory demands, 1) forgetting the original information, but 2) remembering the suggested information (Schooler, 1998).

What causes misinformation to be integrated into memory?

One factor that we found to be of particular importance in cementing misinformation into memory is the act of recollection itself (Schooler, Foster, & Loftus, 1988). Specifically, we find that encouraging the remembering of misinformation reduces access to the original information.

What is the impact of describing eyewitness situations

The finding that the act of recollection can itself be a source of memory distortion suggests that situations that encourage inaccurate recollections may lead to memory errors. This reasoning led us (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990) to hypothesize that attempting to verbally recall an intrinsically non-verbal memory would encourage inaccurate recollections which would thereby distort memory. Consistent with this prediction, we found that verbal rehearsal of a previously seen face or color markedly impaired subsequent recognition. Since the discovery of this source of memory interference, termed “verbal overshadowing”, we have developed an extensive program of research to better understand when and why verbal overshadowing occurs. See verbal overshadowing

Researchers

Jonathan Schooler

My lab’s research takes a “big picture” perspective in attempting to understand the nature of mental life, and in particular consciousness. Combining empirical, philosophical, and contemplative traditions, we address broad questions that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries.