Eyewitness Testimony: The Role of Commitment in Increasing Reliability Author(s): Norman J. Bregman and Hunter A.

McAllister Source: Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Sep., 1982), pp. 181-184 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3033652 . Accessed: 15/07/2013 12:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Psychology Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.164.3.22 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:25:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY
Pp. 99-133 in R. L. Burgess and T. L.

181

Huston (eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships.New York: Academic Press. Huston, T. L., and R. L. Burgess 1979 "Social exchange in developing relationships: An overview." Pp. 3-28 in R. L. Burgess and T. L. Huston (eds.), Social Exchange in Developing Relationships. New York: Academic Press. Huston, T. L., and R. M. Cate 1979 "Social exchange in intimate relationships." Pp. 263-269 in M. Cook and G. Wilson (eds.), Love and Attraction. Oxford: Pergamon. Kerlinger,F. N., and E. J. Pedhazur 1973 Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Morton, T. L., and M. A. Douglas 1981 "Growthof relationships."Pp. 3-26 in S. W. Duck and R. Gilmour(eds.), Personal Relationships2: Developing Personal Relationships.London: Academic Press.

Sampson, E. E. 1977 "Psychology and the American ideal." Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology 35:767-782. Thibaut,J. W., and H. H. Kelley 1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley. Walster, E., M. K. Utne, and J. Traupmann und intime sozialbeziehun1977 "Equity-theorie gen." Pp. 193-247 in G. Mikula and W. Stroebe (eds.), Sympathie, Freundschaft und Ehe. Berne, Switzerland:Huber. Walster,E., G. W. Walster,and E. Berscheid 1978 Equity: Theory and Research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Walster, E., G. W. Walster,and J. Traupmann 1978 "Equity and premaritalsex." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36:82-92. Walster, G. W. 1975 "The Walsteret al. (1973)equityformula:A correction." Representative Research in Social Psychology 6:65-67.

Social Psychology Quarterly 1982, Vol. 45, No. 3, 181-184

Eyewitness Testimony: The Role of Commitment in Increasing Reliability

NORMAN J. BREGMAN HUNTER A. McALLISTER
Southeastern Louisiana University

This experiment investigated the role of commitment, conformity pressure, and source credibility in eyewitness testimony. A videotaped auto accident was used as the witnessed event. Eighty subjects were employed in a 2 (commitment vs. no commitment) x 2 (conformity pressure vs. no conformity pressure) x 2 (authority vs. nonauthority) design. As expected, subjects who made a previous commitment were able to resist the pressure to conform to speed estimates.

leadinginformation (Loftus, 1975, 1977;Loftus et al., 1975; Loftus et al., 1978; Loftus and Palmer, 1974). For example, Loftus and Palmer (1974) found that the speeds of cars involved in an accident were significantly We wish to thank Gwen Monistere and Kevin overestimatedif leading questions were asked Grob for their technical assistance in all phases of concerningspeed. Dodd and Bradshaw(1980) this experiment,Bobbie Threetonfor helpingto pre- pointed out limits to this effect related to perpare this manuscript,and CaroleMcAllisterfor her suasion and source credibility(cf. Hovland et editorialcomments. The researchwas partiallysupported by a research grant from Southeastern al., 1953;Hovlandand Weiss, 1951).Dodd and LouisianaUniversityto the first author.Address all Bradshaw (1980) found that the type of indicommunicationsto: Norman J. Bregman, Depart- vidual who provides the misleading infotmaeffect on a witness's ment of Psychology, SoutheasternLouisiana Uni- tion can have an important versity, P.O. Box 831, University Station, Ham- response. They arguedthat in a psychological mond, LA 70402-0831. laboratoryit is not clear what intentions the
Research in eyewitness testimony has revealed that it is relatively easy to alter an eyewitness's reliability and accuracy by pressuring the eyewitness with leading or mis-

This content downloaded from 146.164.3.22 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:25:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

182

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

Each subject was escorted individuallyby the experimenterinto an experimental room and was greeted by another alleged subject (confederate).The confederatewas dressed in either street clothes (nonauthority) or a policeman's uniform (authority). The experimenterinformedthe subjects that they would be reviewing a short film that had previously been used in trainingprogramswhere accurate observations were essential. They were told that the purposeof the experimentwas to evaluate the usefulness of this film in eyewitness testimony. After viewing the film, the confederate and the experimentalsubject were separated and the subject filled out a questionnaire. Instructions at the top of the questionnairetold the subjectto sign (commitment) or not to sign (no commitment) the questionnaire. After completing the questionnairethe subject was reunitedwith the confederate. The subjectwas informedthat the confederate had been selected by chance to be interviewed concerning the accident they had just seen. It was furtherexplainedthat the reason this was being done was to simulate what would occur at the scene of an accident. The experimenterthen proceeded to interview the confederate. Half of the subjects heard the confederateestimate the speed of the first car as 45 miles per hour and the speed of the second car as 60 miles per hour (conformity pressure). The remaining subjects were not METHOD given any speed informationfrom the confedSubjects erate (no conformity pressure). The actual Ninety-one volunteers from introductory speed of both cars was 30 miles per hour. After psychology classes participated as subjects. the interrogation,the experimenterinformed Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the subjects that class credit could only be

person revealing the leading or misleading questions has and that these intentions, as interpretedby the subject, can have a significant impacton eyewitness testimony. An important issue is whether there are other variablesthat might alter these "baseline" effects. Commitmentis a variable that holds great promise in accomplishingthe goal of altering the influenceof pressurefroman authorityfigure. Deutch and Gerard (1955) hypothesized that a firm initialdecision (commitment) could insulatea subject againstmajorityinformation (conformitypressure)such as that found in the Asch (1951) situation. Consistent with their predictions, the firmerthe commitmentmade the greater was the resistance to conformity pressure. An experiment by Loftus (1977) lends partial support to the importance of commitment.She found that subjectswho had already made a color response (commitment) to a nonessential object viewed in a series of slides did not shift their color preferences as easily as subjects who had not made such a commitment. Clearly, the effect of commitment could potentially be very importantin insulatingan eyewitness from conformity pressure effects. In order for an eyewitness to remainindependent, consistent, and possibly more accurateit may be necessary for the witness to make a commitmentas early as possible so as not to be influencedby conformitypressureat the scene of the event, in line-ups,in the courtroom,etc. The present experiment was conducted to determinewhether commitmentwould in fact reduce the effect of conformitypressure in an eyewitness paradigm.Since the originalstudies by Asch (1951) and Deutch and Gerard(1955) used nonauthorityfigures to exert conformity pressure,and since Dodd and Bradshaw(1980) have shown that the individualprovidingthe informationcan have a significant impact, it was decided that this variable should also be manipulated. A 2 (commitmentvs. no commitment) x 2 (conformity pressure vs. no conformity pressure) x 2 (authority vs. nonauthority) design was employed. It was hypothesized that the least change occurs in groups that have made a commitment.It was also hypothesized that subjects in the no commitment/conformity/authority pressure condition are more susceptible to changing their speed estimates comparedwith their no conformitypressure control group.

eight experimentalconditions. Eleven subjects failed to answer the questionnaire appropriately and were therefore eliminated from the sample.
Apparatus and Materials

A Sony videotapeplayerand a 19-inchSony black and white monitor were used to display an eight-second scene of two cars involved in an intersectionaccident. The authoritymanipulation employed a confederate in a police uniformborrowedfrom the local authorities. Questionnaires were administered to all subjects. They containedquestionsconcerning the speed of the two automobiles as well as the model of the cars and the number of passengers in each car. The film depicted the second automobile as causing the accident.
Procedure

This content downloaded from 146.164.3.22 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:25:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY

183

change their speed estimates for both cars (in the directionof the pressure)than the no conformitypressurecontrol group. This replicates the typical finding in the literature that authorities can influence eyewitness reports through various indirect pressures such as leading questions or questionnaires,false information, etc. (Loftus, 1975; Loftus et al., 1975; Loftus et al., 1978; Loftus and Palmer, 1974). The main question addressed in the present experimentwas whether commitment would reduce a subject's susceptibilityto the influences of conformitypressure in the presence of an authority. SupportingDeutch and Gerard's (1955) findings, commitment in the form of signinga statementdid allow subjects to resist conformity pressure from an authority; subjects in the commitment/conformity RESULTS pressure/authoritycondition showed no significant differences in speed estimates from The car's estimated speed on the first ques- their no conformity pressure control group. tionnaire was subtracted from the estimated Thus, early commitment by eyewitnesses in speed given on the second questionnaireas a the form of signed statementsappearsto be an measure of the eyewitness's reliability.These effective technique for protecting an eyewitdifferencescores were analyzedusing planned ness's testimony from the influence of aucomparisons. Six orthogonal questions were thorities encountered during the judicial proanalyzed. Three of the planned comparisons cess. the concerningthe second car were significant: One possible reason that only weak support no commitment condition produced signifi- for this result was found in the Loftus (1977) cantly larger changes than the commitment research was because an atypical dependent condition (t(72) = 1.84, p < .05, Qj2 = .05); the measure was employed. Subjects were asked authority condition produced significantly to judge the color of a car they saw on only one larger changes in speed estimates than the slide. Neitherthe car nor its color providedany nonauthoritycondition (t(72) = 1.93, p < .05, important information about the aut/omobile Qj2 = .05); and the no commitment/conformity accident depicted in a series of slides. Furcondition produced signifi- thermore, attempted alteration of a subject's pressure/authority cantly larger changes than the no testimony occurred via a questionnaire, commitment/noconformitypressure/authority whereas in the present experiment the miscondition (t(18) = 2.05, p < .05, Q12 = .13). leading informationwas introducedby a perTable 1 shows the means of the eight groups. son who made a statement concerning the The nonsignificant plannedcomparisonswere: speed of the car. The present experimentalso pressure/authority employed a strongermanipulationof commit(1) commitment/conformity vs. commitment/no conformity pressure/ ment, i.e., signing the questionnaire. authority; (2) commitment/conformity While the present findings are rather pressure/nonauthority vs. commitment/no straightforward,future research should adand (3) no dress several important unresolved issues. conformity pressure/nonauthority; pressure/nonauthority First, under what conditions will other commitment/conformity vs. no commitment/no conformity pressure/ nonauthority eyewitnesses influence an nonauthority.Only one of the planned com- eyewitness's testimony? Although conformity parisons concerning the first car was signifi- pressure from nonauthorityeyewitnesses did cant: the no commitment/conformity not influence subjects in this experiment,subpressure/authoritycondition yielded signifi- jects in other paradigmshave been influenced cantly larger changes than the no by nonauthorities (Asch, 1951; Deutch and commitment/noconformitypressure/authority Gerard, 1955). Following the example of the condition (t(18) = 2.00, p < .05, Q2 = .13). classic conformityexperiments, one could increase the number of nonauthority eyewitnesses with the expectation of producing DISCUSSION greater conformity pressure, which should As predicted, subjects in the no alter an eyewitness's speed estimate. In this commitment/conformity pressure/authority type of paradigm,the researchercould evalucondition were significantly more likely to ate the effect of commitmenton reducingthe earned if they returnedfor a follow-up in two weeks. Two weeks later subjects were administered another questionnaire. All subjects were informedby the experimenterthat this questionnaire would be signed when completed. The experimenterwent on to explain that a few weeks after an accident an eyewitness is typically called in to give a written and signed statement,and the purposeof the currentsession was to simulate the condition an eyewitness would actually be exposed to. The main dependent measure was the subject's estimate of speed of the second automobile, the one depicted as causing the accident.

This content downloaded from 146.164.3.22 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:25:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

184

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY QUARTERLY

Table 1. Mean Difference Scores as a Function of Authority, Commitment, and Pressure Mean Speed Estimate Trial I Authority Commitment Pressure No Pressure No Commitment Pressure No Pressure Nonauthority Commitment Pressure No Pressure No Commitment Pressure No Pressure Mean Speed Estimate Trial II Difference Score p

43.7 36.8 31.3 34.4 39.4 35.3 40.8 27.4

49.0 39.5 43.5 36.6 39.4 31.7 42.2 34.0

5.3 2.7 12.2 2.2 0.0 -3.6 1.4 6.3

>.05 <.05

>?05 >.05

Note: Positive scores denote that the speed estimates on the second questionnaire were greater than the speed estimates on the first (immediate) questionnaire.

Hovland, C. I., I. L. Janis, and M. M. Kelley 1953 Communications and Persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press. fective in this regard. Cautionshould be taken conbecause research this when conducting Hovland, C. I., and W. Weiss formity pressure applied in the present study 1951 "The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness." Public may be considerably milder than the conforOpinionQuarterly15:635-650. mity pressureappliedby leadingquestions and in situations. real-world eager interrogators Loftus, E. F. 1975 "Leadingquestions and the eyewitness reIn summary,the results stronglysuggestthat port." Cognitive Psychology 7:560-572. speed estimates are significantlyinfluenced in 1977 "Shiftinghuman color memory." Memory an eyewitness.who is exposed to conformity and Cognition5:696-699. pressure exerted by an authorityfigure. However, if the eyewitness makes a commitment Loftus, E. F., D., Altman, and R. Geballe 1975 "Effects of questioning upon a witness's concerning automobile speed prior, to being later recollections." Journalof Police Sciexposed to confo,rmitypressure from an au3:1-2. ence and Administration thority figure, the effect produced from this H. J. Burns F., D. G. Miller, and Loftus, E. conformitypressure is dissipated. of verbalinformation 1978 "Semanticintegration into a visual memory." Journalof ExperREFERENCES imental Psychology: Human Learningand Memory4:19-31. Asch, S. E. 1951 "Effects of grouppressureon the modifica- Loftus, E. F., and J. P. Palmer of automobiledestruction: 1974 "Reconstruction tion and distortion of judgments." Pp. An-exampleof the interactionbetween lan177-190 in H. Geutzkow (ed.), Groups, guage and memory." Journal of Verbal Leadership, and Men. Pittsburgh: CarLearningand VerbalBehavior 13:585-589. negie.

biguity, overtness of pressure, or intentionality (Dodd and Bradshaw, 1980) might also be ef-

conformity pressure produced by several Deutch, M., and H. G. Gerard 1955 "A study of normative and informational nonauthorityeyewitnesses. judgment."Jourinfluenceupon individual A second avenue of research concerns the nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology conditions under which an authority figure's 51:629-636. influence on an eyewitness can be alte,red. Dodd, D. H., and J. M. Bradshaw Commitmentis but one of several variables 1980 "Leading questions and memory: Pragan authority. of influence limit the that could matic constraints." Journal of Verbal Othervariablessuch as degree of stimulusamLearningand VerbalBehavior 19:695-704.

This content downloaded from 146.164.3.22 on Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:25:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions