CAN FABRICATED EVIDENCE INDUCE FALSE EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?

The article by Wade, Green, and Nash (2010) explores the impact of induced
evidence on the testimony given by an eyewitness. The study is based on the belief that false
information has the effect of influencing memories and beliefs of people. Applying this to the
context of crime, it follows that fabricated evidence can induce individuals to accuse others
of having done something that they actually never did. The article refers to literature
available about misinformation, false beliefs and false memories. In the studies on false
memories, the scientists have presented arguments suggesting that false suggestions will
likely induce a person to give a testimony regarding an event that the person never witnessed.
Based on these arguments, the article describes a research undertaken on doctored video
footage to establish how this can induce people to give testimonies about an offence that they
have not witnessed. The article suggests that the doctored videos and photos are indeed a
powerful form of suggestion thereby becoming useful for studying the eyewitness
phenomenon. The article also describes the results obtained from the study, and these include
the fact that the doctored videos and photos indeed succeeded in making a good percentage of
people concede a crime or an offence, while in real sense there was none. There were even
some cases where the participants in the study added more incriminating details about the
events, and this is a clear indication that doctored evidence has high chances of inducing false
testimony.

SUMMARY 2
The researchers used a method where the participants were given doctored evidences
of an offence at a gambling experience, after which they were requested to sign a form if they
were sure that the incriminated person did the crime (cheating in gambling/taking money
from the bank instead of returning it). The study comprised on sixty participants who were
university students. They were randomly assigned to three categories each with a different
form of doctored evidence. These forms included see-video, told-video, and controlled
condition. There were 20 participants in each group. There were also two confederates who
were blind to the hypothesis and the group randomization. These confederates were trained to
follow the interview protocol, and also to behave consistently. There were two phases in the
procedure, and the first phase entailed the participants sitting alongside a confederate and
earn as much fake money as possible in gambling. Films were taken and a doctored video
was made. The confederate made correct moves, but the doctoring of the videos did show the
confederate take money from bank instead of returning it. The second phase entailed the
participant going back 5-7 hours later, only to be told that the confederate had cheated, and
the videos were shown, video told, and control condition done.
The outcome of the study led to the conclusion that the visual and verbal evidence
shown to the participants did influence their beliefs thereby altering the truths. In other
words, 20 % of them did sign the witness stamen, and this was an indication that they indeed
believed that the confederate was guilty of committing the offences as they were shown in the
footage. The condition for signing the witness statement was for the client to have witnessed
the confederate commit the offense. The fact that they signed the statement confirms that they
indeed believed that they saw the offence being done. Applying this to the criminology
context, the researchers believe that the same case applies. The study was indeed an ideal one
because it was conducted in a reality situation. This makes the outcome quite reliable, but

SUMMARY 3
there was the assumption that the response of some of the participants would help accomplish
the research.

References

Wade, K., Green, S., & Nash, R. (2010). Can Fabricated Evidence Induce False Eyewitness
Testimony? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 899-908.