1932

Abstract

For more than four decades, I have been studying the malleable nature of human memory. For most of this time period, I have also played a role as a consultant or expert in many legal cases that hinged on eyewitness testimony or other memory evidence. Here I describe some of the science that reveals how error prone eyewitnesses can be. Getting the legal field to recognize potential problems with memory evidence, and taking steps to solve those problems, has been a continuing struggle. It is a success story worth sharing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030850
2018-10-13
2024-06-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/14/1/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030850.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030850&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Bernstein DM, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF 2005.a False memories about food can lead to food avoidance. Soc. Cogn. 23:10–33
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bernstein DM, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF 2005.b False beliefs about fattening foods can have healthy consequences. PNAS 102:13724–31
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein DM, Loftus EF 2009. How to tell if a particular memory is true or false. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 4:370–74
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Caldwell E 1972. Angela Davis acquitted on all charges. New York Times June 5. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/08/home/davis-acquit.html
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T 1998. Convicted by Juries, Exonerated by Science Alexandria, VA: Natl. Inst. Justice
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cutler BL 2013. Reform of Eyewitness Identification Procedures Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Davis D, Loftus EF 2009. The scientific status of “repressed” and “recovered” memories of sexual abuse. Psychological Science and Non-Science in the Courtroom: Consensus and Controversy JS Skeem, KS Douglas, SO Lilienfeld 55–79 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Deffenbacher KA, Loftus EF 1982. Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior. Law Hum. Behav. 6:15–30
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dillon MK, Jones AM, Bergold AN, Hui CYT, Penrod SD 2017. Henderson instructions: Do they enhance evidence evaluation?. J. Forensic Psychol. Res. Pract. 17:1–24 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2017.1235964
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Doyle JM 2005. True Witness New York: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Finer JJ 1996. Therapists' liability to the falsely accused for inducing illusory memories of childhood sexual abuse—current remedies and a proposed statute. J. Law Health 11:45–131
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frenda SJ, Nichols RM, Loftus EF 2011. Current issues and advances in misinformation research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 20:20–23
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Garrett BL 2011. Convicting the Innocent Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Lepore J 2014. The Secret History of Wonder Woman New York: Knopf
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Loftus EF 1974. Reconstructing memory: the incredible eyewitness. Psychol. Today 8:116–19
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Loftus EF 1979. Eyewitness Testimony Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Loftus EF 1986. Ten years in the life of an expert witness. Law Hum. Behav. 10:241–63
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Loftus EF 2003. Make-believe memories. Am. Psychol. 58:864–73
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Loftus EF 2005. Planting misinformation in the human mind: a 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learn. Mem. 12:361–66
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Loftus EF 2017. Eavesdropping on memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 68:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Loftus EF, Davis D 2006. Recovered memories. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2:469–98
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Loftus EF, Hoffman HG 1989. Misinformation and memory: the creation of memory. J. Exp. Psychol. 118:100–4
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Loftus EF, Ketcham K 1991. Witness for the Defense: The Accused, the Eyewitness, and the Expert Who Puts Memory on Trial New York: St. Martin's
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Loftus EF, Ketcham K 1994. The Myth of Repressed Memory New York: St. Martin's
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Loftus EF, Pickrell JE 1995. The formation of false memories. Psychiatr. Ann. 25:720–25
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McNally R 2003. Remembering Trauma Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Munsterberg H 1908. On the Witness Stand New York: Doubleday, Page
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Munsterberg H 2009. On the Witness Stand Greentop, MO: Greentop Acad reissue with new forward by E. Loftus
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014. Report urges caution in handling and relying upon eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Recommends best practices for law enforcement and courts Press Release Oct 2
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Natl. Res. Counc. 2014. Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness Identification Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Papalliou AP, Yokum DV, Robertson CT 2015. The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PLOS ONE 10:12e0142695 http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142695
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Patihis L, Ho LY, Tingen IW, Lilienfeld SO, Loftus EF 2014. Are the “memory wars” over? A scientist-practioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory. Psychol. Sci. 25:519–30
    [Google Scholar]
  33. People v. Guzman 47 Cal. App. 3d 380, 121 Cal. Rptr 69 1975.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. People v. Lerma 2016 IL 118496, 47 N.E. 3d 985 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. People v. McDonald 37 Cal. 3d 351, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236, 690 P. 2d 709 1984.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Rakoff J, Loftus EF 2018. The intractability of inaccurate eyewitness identification. Daedelus In press
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J 2000. Actual Innocence New York: Doubleday
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Schmechel RS, O'Toole TP, Easterly C, Loftus EF 2006. Beyond the ken: testing juror's understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetr. J. 46:177–214
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Scoboria A, Wade KA, Lindsay DS, Azad T, Strange D et al. 2017. A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory 25:146–63
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Semmler C, Brewer N, Douglass AB 2012. Jurors believe eyewitnesses. Conviction of the Innocent BL Cutler 185–209 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Seven R 1993. Psychiatry of repressed memory on trial. Seattle Times July 9
    [Google Scholar]
  42. State v. Chapple 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P. 2d 1208 1983.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. State v. Henderson 27 A. 3d 872 (N.J 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Wells GL, Memon AM, Penrod SD 2006. Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 7:45–75
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wigmore JH 1909. Professor Munsterberg and the psychology of evidence. Ill. Law Rev. 3:399–445
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-101317-030850
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error