Previous experiences are the most influential factor in determining human perception. Features of what is familiar becomes evident in future endeavors. Human’s are constantly making connections between what they know, building relationships, and interweaving traits into what they are learning.
This week in class we completed an activity where we were asked to create a cognitive map. We discussed how our previous experience would very much be shown throughout our perception of the given topic. My group was given the topic, “effective governance”, and asked to describe our ideal model. The four of us began to scribble on our papers, glancing around realizing how much contrast was between the quad. When we presented the end results to each other, it was clear how our professor’s statements about perception were correct. Our most highly valued traits were results of our previous experiences. Our adversities explained factors such as “equal opportunity” and characteristics as “sympathy” or “understanding”. We went around and briefly shared stories as to why these traits were held at such value. It was clear that our past experiences had a high impact.
Furthering, we discussed how previous experience could easily morph perception in eye-witness testimonies. For decades, scientists have debated the reliability of these familiarity matching tests used in prosecution. Too often the descriptions are either too vague, as a result of panic, or the witness claims to have seen traits that are merely not there. Researcher, Kenneth Deffenbacher, at the University of Nebraska wanted to look further into the validity of eyewitness testimonies. The first problem he discovered was the high level of confidence witness claim to have had, regardless if they were correct. This is due to confirmation bias. While still missing many of the traits of the offender, when presented with a possible suspect, victims filled in the gaps. In addition, witness also felt a lot of pressure to decide on a suspect immediately. Deffenbacher predict that this is often the result of trying finish the case and feel at ease. He discovered there were extremely high amounts of anxiety when witness were asked to pick. The higher amounts of anxiety a witness held, the faster they responded, regardless of correctness. Deffenbacher wanted to further investigate if there was a correlation between heightened stress and the encoding of a perpetrator’s face. Most victims admitted to be extremely frightened and most remembered very little about the situation itself.
While the validity of eyewitness testimony is still being closely monitored, there are still many factors of this technique that remain unclear. What has been consistent through all however, is how much of an impact previous events have on our perception of events. Victims are more likely to recognize traits they have seen previously in peers, friends, family, etc, than to not.
Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories and how they impact our current lives. In this TED talk, she discusses the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony. She begins by explaining a case where a man was called to stand with the offense of rape. The victim immediately pressed charges claiming that she was absolutely positive that was the man who hurt her. Further investigation revealed that the man accused was actually innocent. Loftus reveals how extremely common this is and the lack of accuracy false memories can be. She describes how even the smallest indication or hint can lead to much bigger assumptions.
It is clear that our past experiences are the most influential factor in determining how we react to future. What we have been through is a high predictor of how we perceive certain ideas. Traumatic events are no exception. Eye witness testimony is often polluted with false memories of relating facial features to ones we are familiar with.
No comments:
Post a Comment