Questions for John Wixted regarding his talk on **Emerging Insights into the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory**

[jamesallenevans]

Questions for John Wixted regarding his talk on Emerging Insights into the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory. Eyewitness misidentifications have contributed to many wrongful convictions. However, despite expressing high confidence at trial, eyewitnesses often make inconclusive misidentifications on the first test conducted early in a police investigation. According to a new scientific consensus, it is important to focus on the results of the first test because, if the perpetrator is not in the lineup, the test itself leaves a memory trace of the innocent suspect in the witness’s brain. Thus, all subsequent tests of the witness’s memory for the same suspect constitute tests of contaminated memory. Unfortunately, when evidence of an initial inconclusive identification is introduced at trial, the rules of evidence provide a witness with an opportunity to explain their prior inconsistent statement. In response, witnesses often provide an opinion about why they did not confidently identify the suspect on the initial test despite doing so now (e.g., “I was nervous on the first test”). However, witnesses lack expertise in—and have no awareness of—the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination that have been elucidated by decades of scientific research. The combination of a sincerely held (false) memory and a believable (but erroneous) explanation for a prior inconsistent statement is often persuasive to jurors. This is a recipe for a wrongful conviction, one that has been followed many times. These wrongful convictions, which have long been attributed to the unreliability of eyewitness memory, instead reflect a system that unwittingly prioritizes false memories elicited at trial over true memories elicited early in a police investigation. The Federal Rules of Evidence were enacted almost a half-century ago, and it may be time to revisit them in light of the principles of memory that have been established since that time. Paper sent by email.

[bhavyapan]

Thanks for sharing your work! Given the impact of the first identification test on the memory of eyewitnesses and the subsequent influence on wrongful convictions, and your recommendations for the need of a systemic solution -- what can be some of the procedural tweaks in the system that have worked in the past/you imagine might work to enable the contemporary understanding of memory contamination and safeguard against the persuasive but often erroneous testimony of witnesses at trial?

[QIXIN-ACT]

This research explores how the system unintentionally gives precedence to false memories that emerge during a trial, as opposed to true memories brought up in the initial stages of a police investigation. Given the discovery that the workings and principles of human memory are at odds with the legal standards of evidence, I'm curious if there are similar fundamental conflicts in other fields and how they might be addressed. Thank you for sharing your work!

[XiaotongCui]

Very interesting research! I wonder can advancements in technology, such as video recording of initial identifications or virtual lineup procedures, help mitigate the risks associated with memory contamination? Are there technological tools or protocols that could assist law enforcement in conducting more reliable eyewitness identification procedures?

[oliang2000]

This research is particularly intriguing as it delves into a comparative analysis of the understanding of memory within the legal system vs. scientific research, offering concrete recommendations concerning current federal regulations. One might posit that the influence of prior exposure on memory exerts a significant influence not only in the realm of eyewitness identification of faces but also across various other procedures within the courtroom. In light of this, I wonder what we should think of the reliability of anecdotal evidence relative to direct evidence, given what we know scientifically?

[zcyou018]

Thank you for your insightful research! I'm wondering how can the insights from recent scientific research on memory contamination and eyewitness identification be effectively integrated into the current legal framework to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions?

[C-y22]

Thank you for sharing your interesting research! How do the principles outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence regarding memory and eyewitness testimony align with current scientific understanding of memory mechanisms, as discussed in the document?

[natashacarpcast]

Hi! Thank you for the interesting research :) I'm wondering if you have presented these results directly to policy makers or legal professionals. If so, have you perceived resistance from them?

[ecg1331]

Thank you so much for sharing your research!

I thought it was really interesting that you pointed out that your research allows you to make suggestions based on science, but not “prescriptions based on expertise in the interpretation of the rules that govern the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial” due to your lack of legal expertise.

I’m wondering, have you gotten any opinions from anyone in the legal system? Do they see things changing based on the evidence presented in your paper?

[Anmin-Yang]

Thank you for sharing your research. Considering the pervasive influence of social media and the vast amount of information available in today's society, do you believe that eyewitness misidentifications could become more intricate? With the Federal Rules of Evidence being over 50 years old, what particular aspects do you propose should be reassessed? Additionally, what challenges might arise in this process?

[lguo7]

I really like this topic.
What ethical guidelines should be established for law enforcement and legal practitioners to minimize the risk of memory contamination during the investigation and trial phases? Evaluate the balance between effective crime investigation and the preservation of the integrity of human memory.

[Marugannwg]

This research topic really holds social significance -- even outside the justice system, it is meaningful for everyone to have a grasp on how credible a person's testimony is; and more importantly, how trustworthy our own belief is. A general question I have is: how should we evaluate (on ourselves) the credibility of any kind of memory and belief based on this finding? Can we reduce the bias after we know we are biased?

[naivetoad]

Considering the difficulty of addressing the lack of credibility in identification at trial, is it possible to exclude such identifications but use video recordings of the first identification test for testimony?

[secorey]

Hi Prof. Wixted,
Thanks for coming to present your work—a fascinating paper.
Do you think the greater problem lies with how witnesses are treated in the courtroom or how they are treated when they are questioned by police directly after the event? My thought is that police questioning takes place in a less restrictive context than a courtroom does, so the police have more freedom to implant (whether intentionally or unintentionally) ideas into the witnesses' heads.

[Jessieliao2001]

Hi Thanks for your sharing! My question is: Considering the scientific insights into the mechanisms of memory contamination, particularly the impact of initial eyewitness identification attempts on subsequent memory tests, how can legal frameworks, like the Federal Rules of Evidence, be updated to accommodate these findings and reduce wrongful convictions?

[yuzhouw313]

Dear Professor Wixted,
Thank you for presenting your work! I am very intrigued by the concept of memory contamination, and I am curious to know if the same contamination apply beyond legal system, for example to into psychological therapy settings or daily cognitive processes and what potential research can be done in those areas?

[hchen0628]

Thank you very much for your insightful sharing. I am curious as to why the knowledge about memory malleability and the unreliability of eyewitness identification revealed by scientific research has not effectively facilitated reforms in legal practices, thereby reducing the reliance on erroneous eyewitness testimony within the current judicial system. What obstacles and challenges have been encountered in this process, and why have they arisen?

[ymuhannah]

Thanks for your work, Prof. Wixted! I have a question regarding the mechanisms behind witness memory contamination. Why does an eyewitness's exposure to a suspect's photo in earlier tests lead to the misidentification of an innocent defendant later on? Does this mean that eyewitnesses only retain impressions of faces they have seen, without remembering the context in which they saw them? Do they only remember the events they witnessed, but not the subjects involved? Why does this misplaced matching occur? What implications does this type of false memory have for our understanding of memory mechanisms?

[Caojie2001]

Thank you for sharing your interesting research! I wonder how different legal systems around the world address the challenges caused by memory contamination and whether there have been innovative approaches that have proven effective in reducing the negative influence caused by memory contamination.

[shaangao]

Thank you for sharing your research! Given the challenges we encounter with eyewitness memories, would you say that using eyewitness testimonials would still do us more good than harm, especially in certain situations such as when the eyewitnesses underwent trauma & stress due to the crime? Subsequently, can we identify a consistent set of situations where we should be particularly wary when considering eyewitness testimonials?

[Vindmn1234]

How does signal detection theory enhance our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness memory? Are there particular aspects of this theory that have proven most illuminating or surprising in your research?

[MaxwelllzZ]

Thank you Prof. Wixted for sharing the work.

I get that most of the time the witness will be asked point out the suspect and the idea that memory got contaminated. However, I want to know whether explicitly informing witnesses that the suspect may not be included in a lineup can help maintain the accuracy of their memory and reduce the likelihood of memory contamination during eyewitness identification procedures.
Would frankly telling the witness that maybe somebody else is responsible reduce the compromising justice, saying from the ethical dimensions within policying practices?

[Weiranz926]

Thank you for your sharing! Given the recent advancements in our understanding of memory contamination and the potential for wrongful convictions due to eyewitness misidentifications, how do you envision the legal system adapting to incorporate these insights? Specifically, are there any innovative approaches or technologies that could be employed during the initial identification process to minimize the risk of memory contamination and ensure more reliable eyewitness testimony?

[Yuxin-Ji]

Thanks for sharing your work! Very interesting and meaningful study. I am not very familiar with criminal trial data, but I imagine that like many other cases, the data itself does not represent the exact truth. There could be cases of undiscovered wrong conviction (wrong conviction but we never find out) and thus undiscovered misidentification, or seemingly correct evidence of innocent due to undiscovered wrong conviction. How much do you think such situations exist in your data and how could it potentially affect results?

[alejandrosarria0296]

Thank for sharing your work prof. Wixted. Race, gender, and other sources of stereotypical biases have been shown to affect eyewitness testimony in court settings. I'm curious about how you think this phenomenon may interact with your findings.

[anzhichen1999]

Thanks for sharing your work! It is really an interesting piece! I am curious how does the concept of the "first test" of uncontaminated memory challenge traditional legal approaches to eyewitness testimony, and what implications does this have for the reliability of such testimonies at trial?

[yiang-li]

Thanks for sharing the work. Could you elaborate on the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination? How do these processes undermine the reliability of eyewitness identifications made at later stages?

[ksheng-UChicago]

Thanks for sharing. Since the first test of a witness’s memory seems very important in your discussion, is there any way to further enhance the credibility and reliability of the first test of a witness’s memory? Thanks!

[yuhanwang7]

Thanks for sharing. How do the principles and mechanisms of human memory challenge the current legal frameworks and practices surrounding the admissibility of eyewitness testimony in U.S. courts?

[Zhuojun1]

Thanks for sharing! In light of your research on the reliability of eyewitness memory, what are your thoughts on the role of expert testimony in court regarding memory contamination? Do you believe that educating jurors about the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination could lead to fairer trials, and if so, how might this be effectively implemented in the legal system?

[jinyz1220]

Thank you for sharing your work! My question is: Could VR be used to recreate crime scenes for witnesses, potentially helping them recall details more accurately?

[WonjeYun]

Thank you for sharing your work. It is commonly known that law is the most conservatively changing system, so it does make sense that new scientific discoveries are not implemented in the system as much as we think. I am curious whether there would be able to make test-cases whether the system could admit their misconceptions and accept the changes?

[HongzhangXie]

Thank you for sharing your fascinating research. Your study reveals that the results of the initial survey are crucial; if the perpetrator is not on the list during the first survey and a witness identifies someone else, that survey could contaminate subsequent memories. I've learned about another study on human facial features in a workshop. To avoid this problem, is there a potential method where we don't use real photographs in the first survey but instead use virtual characters generated based on specific features? This would allow witnesses to gradually confirm the perpetrator's appearance by identifying similar features in the images multiple times. Such method could prevent the issue of the criminal not being on the candidate list and might also enhance the cross-verification ability of responses from different witnesses. In what way can we design experiments to analyze the effectiveness of the two methods?

[Kevin2330]

Thank you for your research and insights. Your talk on "Emerging Insights into the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory" delved into crucial aspects of how eyewitness memory can be unreliable and how this unreliability has led to wrongful convictions. Could you elaborate on the psychological mechanisms that lead to memory contamination when an eyewitness is exposed to a lineup, especially when the perpetrator is not present? How do these mechanisms operate at a subconscious level?
Moreover, based on your research, what recommendations can you provide for improving the initial lineup test to minimize the risk of memory contamination? Thank you.

[66Alexa]

Thanks for your sharing. My questions are: What specific changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence would you propose to address the issue of eyewitnesses confidently testifying based on contaminated memories? Should explanations for prior inconsistent statements by eyewitnesses be prohibited or limited in some way? Thank you.

[beilrz]

This is a very interesting research. I was wondering would it be possible to measure the confidence of eye witness based on brain activity, such as event related potentials? I know various cognitive activities can be detected through event potentials (N400, P300...); I was wondering if we can predict whether the person is familiar with a specific suspect based on the witness's brain activity and how familiar the witness is with the suspect. I feel the current Rules of Evidence are too unreliable: for example, if the witness is asked to identify one suspect from five persons, the baseline chance is 20%, and the witness can even correct themselves later.

[Dededon]

Thank you for the interesting research! I'm curious about how these social psychology research could be connected with the cultural sociology theory of cognition, and cultural schemas. Could we design more complex experiments to test about culture schemas?

[xiaowei-v]

This is a very interesting topic. One other paper I read about which seems to be somewhat linked to the idea here is that slower motion makes viewers believe the suspects are more likely to be intentional Another is relevant to repeated viewing and judgement of the intention. I wonder how these findings might line up in the same context.

[hantaoxiao]

Thanks for sharing, Can you elaborate on the neurological or psychological processes that lead to memory contamination in eyewitnesses? How does the initial memory test imprint a memory of an innocent suspect?

[yunshu3112]

Hi Prof. Wixted, I found your research topic very interesting and significant. I wonder whether the academia has reached a concensus on how much heterogeneity there are among human memories. Are the memorization mechanisms generally the same across all human beings, or people can vary significantly on how much they can memorize and what information are more salient to them?

[xinyi030]

Thanks, Prof. Wixted! Your research is incredibly insightful. How can we distinguish true memories from false ones in eyewitness testimony, especially when subsequent tests contribute to memory contamination? Are there specific cognitive mechanisms or strategies that can help with making this distinction?

[yuanninghuang]

Hi Prof. Wixted, based on your research into the cognitive mechanisms of human memory, what general principles or guidelines would you recommend for the legal system to better account for the fallibility and malleability of eyewitness memory?

[saniazeb8]

Thank you for sharing amazing work on such an important topic. I would be interested to know more about the subjectivity it raises. As cognitive ability and the psychological impact of bearing a shock could make the witness statement subjective to experience as well. How can we design policies to cater that? Could giving a time lag work in such cases.

[vigiwang]

Thanks, Professor! I was wondering that: Considering the significant impact of initial eyewitness tests on subsequent memory recall, should legal systems implement mandatory guidelines to prioritize these initial identifications in court proceedings, and how might this change affect the integrity of eyewitness testimony?

[yunfeiavawang]

Thanks for sharing! I'm curious if there are comparable basic conflicts in other domains and how they might be resolved, given the fact that the principles and workings of human memory contradict with the legal standards of proof.

[Joycepeiting]

Thanks for the sharing, Prof. Wixted. In the article, it has mentioned the time it takes for prejudicial information to outweigh probative information cannot be precisely identified. I would love more elaboration on whether there is an approximate interval and whether any potential methods and simulation can be done based on the past records to help formulate thorough rules for different trial times.

[MaoYingrong]

Thanks for sharing your work! I have done some relevant eyewitness studies before. It's always a tricky problem. I remembered that one way to avoid misidentification is to create a lineup of individuals with the characteristics described by the eyewitness but all of them are innocent. If the eyewitness still points out one person, it demonstrates misidentification. But this would also contaminate eyewitness's memories. So is it right now that the evidence from the eyewitness is not so important?

[franciszz992]

Thank you so much for the interesting talk. I didn't know that memory contamination in eyewitnesses is sincere. I though it was perhaps misled by the opposing lawyers. Good to know the frontier research in this regard. Is there any way to explain this not only at the behavioral, but at the biological levels to understand what happened under the hude?

[ZenthiaSong]

Hello, thanks for the sharing. You mentioned a new scientific consensus regarding the focus on the results of the first test. What recent research or findings have contributed to this consensus, and how widely accepted are these ideas within the forensic psychology community?

[boki2924]

Thank you for sharing! How can the criminal justice system better integrate the new scientific understanding of memory contamination, particularly the importance of the first eyewitness test, to prevent wrongful convictions, and what specific changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence would you recommend to address this issue?

[Adrianne-Li]

Hello Professor Wixted,

Thank you for your enlightening discussion on the reliability of eyewitness memory. Given the intricate cognitive mechanisms you've described and the significant impact of memory malleability on legal outcomes, what specific principles or guidelines would you suggest the legal system adopt to more accurately account for the fallibility of eyewitness testimony?

Adrianne(zhuyin) Li
(CNetID: zhuyinl)

[schen115]

Thanks for your sharing such interesting and insightful topic for us! I was curious that considering initial eyewitness identifications can lead to memory contamination and subsequent false memories, what specific reforms to the Federal Rules of Evidence would you recommend to better align legal practices with our current understanding of memory mechanisms?

[Ry-Wu]

Thank you for sharing you interesting work. You mentioned that subsequent lineup identifications could be viewed as tests of a 'contaminated memory' if the perpetrator is not present in the original lineup. How would you suggest the legal system address this issue to reduce the risk of wrongful convictions?

[bairr1208]

Thank you, Dr. Wixted, for your enlightening talk on "Emerging Insights into the Reliability of Eyewitness Memory." Your research, which compares the understanding of memory in the legal system with scientific research, provides valuable recommendations for current federal regulations. Considering the significant influence of prior exposure on memory, not only in eyewitness identification but also in various courtroom procedures, how should we evaluate the reliability of anecdotal evidence compared to direct evidence? Given the new scientific consensus on the importance of the first test in eyewitness identification, what changes do you believe are necessary in the Federal Rules of Evidence to account for memory contamination and improve the accuracy of witness testimony? Additionally, how can we address the issue of witnesses providing believable but erroneous explanations for prior inconsistent statements, which can lead to wrongful convictions?

[ana-yurt]

Thank you for sharing your insightful research with us! In light of your findings, could you provide any specific policy or technical tools that could effectively reduce the risk of eyewitness misidentification?

[cty20010831]

Thank you for sharing your insightful research with us! Could you explain the subconscious mechanisms of memory contamination that occur after the initial inconclusive identification? How do these mechanisms affect the reliability of subsequent eyewitness testimonies?

[kunkunz111]

Considering your expertise in eyewitness memory, I am curious about the procedural aspect of lineups. Specifically, if witnesses were explicitly informed that the suspect might not be present in the lineup, could this approach potentially enhance the accuracy of their memory and minimize the risk of false identification?

[Brian-W00]

Thanks for sharing. Based on your research, how can current evidence rules be improved to reduce wrongful convictions caused by eyewitness memory errors?

[Huiyu1999]

Thanks for sharing! My question is :1. How can new technologies or methodologies improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications and reduce the risk of wrongful convictions? 2. How can the criminal justice system balance the need for reliable eyewitness testimony with the practical constraints of law enforcement investigations?

[Yunrui11]

Thank you professor Wixted! Your work on the reliability of eyewitness memory and its implications for wrongful convictions is both enlightening and crucial for the fields of psychology and criminal justice. In your abstract, you emphasize the transformation of memory each time it is recalled, particularly under legal circumstances. Could you elaborate on the specific cognitive mechanisms that lead to memory contamination in eyewitnesses? Additionally, considering the persuasive nature of a confidently recalled but contaminated memory, what procedural changes do you propose should be implemented in police lineups and subsequent legal processes to better safeguard against the influence of these memory distortions? How might these changes integrate with existing legal frameworks to ensure they are practical and effective?

[aliceluo1]

Hi John I want to further know what practical steps can be taken to ensure that jurors understand the potential for memory contamination and the implications it has for the reliability of eyewitness testimony during trials?