Why witnesses give different accounts: it's not lying

Miqo editors · 2 sources

Why people remember different things

Narrowed attention means the gaze stays fixed on the threat. People describe the weapon in detail and barely remember the face.
Little time gives you a general impression, not detailed features, and that impression is then filled out into a complete portrait.
Expectations fill in the gaps with what is typical: average height, a dark jacket. Later, this is indistinguishable from what was actually seen.
Verbal description can make a person worse at recognizing a face in a lineup: the verbal version displaces the visual one.

The last point is the most surprising. You might think that describing a face would cement it in memory. Experiments show the opposite: a detailed verbal description impairs later recognition, and the effect has been reproduced consistently.

Where people were standing also makes a difference. One person was closer, another saw the scene from the side, and a third saw the person's back as they walked away. Each describes their own field of view, and the discrepancy is just as expected as the difference between photographs taken from different angles.

Similarities between witnesses are valuable; discrepancies mean very little. People saw different things, rather than remembering the same thing differently.

What investigators do about it

The first rule is to separate witnesses before questioning them. Once they exchange impressions, their accounts move closer together, and with them, the chance to check one against the other. A similarity that appears after they have talked confirms nothing.

The second is to ask open questions instead of leading ones. Asking, “Was he wearing a dark jacket?” adds a dark jacket to the memory. So investigators ask people to describe what happened freely and follow up only on what they mentioned themselves.

The third is to record everything immediately and word for word. Each retelling changes a memory a little, and an account given a week later differs from the first one. The first account is more valuable than all the later ones, even if it is shorter and less clear.

Confidence deserves a separate mention. A witness who gives a detailed account without hesitation seems more reliable than one who is uncertain. In reality, detail often means a larger share of filling-in, while uncertainty can reflect honesty about gaps.

Finish reading in the Miqo app

1 more minute, then a quiz at the end. Find it under “Crime → Investigation and Evidence”

Point your phone camera here to open the App Store or Google Play.

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

Sources

Experimental psychology has confirmed both narrowed attention during a threat and impaired face recognition after verbal description
recommendations for interviewing witnesses separately are included in investigative guidelines