WIRED Science: Fake Video Can Convince Witnesses to Give False Testimony

[Heidi]

September 14, 2009 | 6:02 pm

People believe what they see, and they’re willing to punish each other for it — apparently even when what they’re seeing is a fake video that doesn’t jibe with real-life experience.

Psychologists have long known that our memories of past events can be influenced by misleading information, but now they’ve proven that doctored video evidence can convince people to offer false eyewitness testimony. In a study of 60 college students performing a computerized gambling task, nearly half were willing to testify that they saw their partner cheat in real life after watching fabricated video evidence. Of students who were told that video evidence existed but didn’t watch the footage themselves, only 10 percent gave false testimony.

“Our participants were willing to sign a statement to say that they witnessed another person cheating in an experiment, when in fact, that person never cheated,” psychologist Kimberley Wade of the University of Warwick wrote in an e-mail. “So we now know that digitally altered footage can change people’s perceptions of an event, and have serious consequences for how people behave.” Wade and her team published their findings this month in Applied Cognitive Psychology.

Most eyewitness studies have been carried out in a setting where there were no consequences for reporting that a person had cheated, but in this study, participants were told that their partner would be disciplined for cheating if they signed the testimony.

<snip>

In an era of easily manipulated photo and video evidence, the researchers say their findings have major implications for law enforcement officials and policy-makers, adding yet more evidence that eyewitness testimony cannot always be accepted as fact.

“We need to remember that witnesses’ memories should be treated like fingerprints, DNA, and other physical evidence — with a lot of care,” wrote Wade. “If we don’t treat them with care, then we run the risk of contamination.”

Read more

[Chulanowa]

1. Politicians have known and exploited this forever

People will tend to believe whatever the most recent version of events they have come across, for two reasons. First, they assume that it's "updated" information, and that what they knew before, even if true, is now outdated and needs to be replaced. Second is much simpler - the wrong version of events is more recent and easier to remember.

it's why if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes true.

[slackmaster]

2. This phenomenon was discussed at length when I took Psychology 1 in the late '70s

And much more.

[TexasObserver]

3. Recommend. Prosecutors routinely bully witnesses into stronger testimony.

They literally wear down their witnesses until they say the lines the prosecutors want said. They eliminate all qualifiers, all equivocations, in testimony. If someone is 90% sure of an identification, they'll beat on them until it's 100%. That's why we have so many innocent people convicted of crimes involving eye witness testimony but no scientific evidence.

[Heidi]

4. True, every word of it.

:thumbsup:

They very often do the same thing to "confidential informants," whose integrity already is questionable and almost entirely without scientific basis, and I know of a federal case on which there was a motion-to-supress hearing today about this very matter.

[TexasObserver]

15. People who ask "why would prosecutors ask people to lie?"

Those folks do not understand the mindset of prosecution in this country. They believe EVERYONE they charge deserves to be convicted of something.

[Echo In Light]

5. This makes me think of people's reactions to 9/11 as being an inside job

[Heidi]

6. How so?

Please explain.

[Echo In Light]

7. Before I re, a question: are you of the mind that 9/11 was an inside job?

[Heidi]

8. To tell you the truth, I don't believe the Bush administration could

have wiped its own ass in the early days of its administration and demonstrated little ability to do anything but fear monger over the following eight years. So, no, I'm not of the mindset that 9/11 was an inside job beyond believing Bush, et al, benefited tremendously from those events.

[Echo In Light]

9. Then I won't bother steering this thread in that direction. Read into my earlier post what you will.

Agreeing to disagree

[Heidi]

10. I agree to disagree, and would add that there's a whole world outside of the US

who believes it would be a feat of untold wonder if Bush et al, so early in that administration, had gathered its shit together to such an advanced stage as to have been able to "make it happen." They got lucky (from their perspective) and were evil enough to parlay the deaths and misfortune of others into an evil empire. And yes, I'm in the LIHOP corner, but willing to entertain science-based arguments to the contrary.

[Echo In Light]

11. It's a mistake to read the PNAC inside job data as being soly attributable to Bush, per se

... but anyhow, that's not what this thread's about.

Re people's perceptions on many matters, it's quite simple to coax entire populations toward a desired (general) position when those doing the coaxing pretty much control all pertinent social outlets involved in selling and maintaining the necessary illusions, and/or preventing any serious challenges to that position.

[Heidi]

12. We're not all beholdin' to the US press, Echo In Light.

But I stopped livin' there more than a decade ago and don't rely as much on the US media for information as I once did, nor am I any longer beholdin' to the MSM for my livelihood. There's that. As I said, I'd entertain science-based arguments contrary to my beliefs; in fact I'd welcome them.

And here's exactly what I mean about the US MSM: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/09/help-a-reporter-out-hits-paydirt-crowdsourcing-news-sources/

[Echo In Light]

13. I'm sure thousands, if not millions, abide M$M even though they don't consume much, if any, of it

Planting seeds within the public mind so that certain people, especially within certain profe$$ional perimeters, can sort of act as social managers who spread the disinfo and unconsciously help to further solidify American un-reality.

[Heidi]

14. I don't disagree with that truth or perception. (nt)

[madmusic]

16. New and improved IQ test?

An IQ test based on this science would be far more practical. The greater the gullibility, the lower the IQ. It might also measure self esteem because it would take into account being submissively deceived by deference to authority.