 |
| Retrieved here |
Long before Scott Fraser discussed the shortcomings of eyewitness
testimonies during his TED Talks presentation, there existed a scholar named Hugo
Munsterberg who is known to many as the “Father of Forensic Psychology”. Born
in Danzig, Germany on June 1, 1863, Hugo Munsterberg was a student of Willhelm
Wundt (1832-1920) who first developed the scientific methodology which later paved
the way for Hugo to conduct his numerous research experiments. Hugo was a
brilliant German-American Harvard psychologist with so many interests and
contributions to the field of psychology that all of his influence simply
cannot be covered in a 500 word blog.
Hugo Munsterberg absolutely loved experimental psychology
and even had a makeshift laboratory in his own house. His passion for research
never ceased and his work is cited in countless journals. Many
Industrial\Organizational psychology students also consider him to be one of the
founders of their branch of applied psychology.
For clinical psychology, Munsterberg wrote Psychotherapy (1909) which outlined the
discussion of mind and body. For Industrial psychology, he showcased the
application of psychology in the workplace by publishing Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913). As stated by Munsterberg, the
aim of this book was to “sketch the
outlines of a new science which
is to intermediate between the modern laboratory psychology and the problems of
economics”.
However, my favorite of his contributions is related to the
branch of Forensic Psychology and the topic of this blog. His work, titled On the Witness Stand (1908) discussed in length the problems surrounding
eyewitness testimony and false confessions. To support his argument, he would oftentimes display a white cardboard decorated in black dots for five seconds and
ask his students to jot down how many dots they saw. Even though the students
knew in advance what they were supposed to be looking for prior to the start of
the brief task, some students still counted 7 to 8 times more than other students.
This type of simple experiment acknowledged what he always suspected regarding the
differences that exist between human beings in their assessment of an occurrence
and how individual perception and memory should not be overlooked when
considering the accuracy of a testimony. He even described his own personal
experience with a home burglary to outline the significant role his own biases and
experience played in his recollection
of the event. It has also been suggested that Munsterberg had reason to believe
that a relationship existed between blood pressure and the truthfulness of a
person’s testimony. His theory on blood pressure was brought to fruition by one
of his own students and would later become one of the major recorded
measurements in lie detector tests.
Unfortunately, he had a controversy-ridden career. In addition
to holding very negative views on women, his choice to remain loyal to Germany
during World War I cost him dearly. So much so that people accused him of being
a German spy and hated him profoundly.
Although he vehemently denied these claims, it was too late because his
reputation and his legacy took a huge hit. His untimely death
occurred on December 16, 1916, when he had massive cerebral hemorrhage while
giving a lecture at Radcliffe College. He died at the lecture platform.
Some people overlook this scholar when discussing the
pioneers of psychology and others briefly make mention of his name. I say his
legacy still lives on and I commend and applaud him for taking on highly debatable
topics such as eyewitness testimony. This area of forensic psychology is still
controversial and I can’t begin to imagine how difficult it was for him to
discuss this matter openly over 100 years ago.
Question for you: Since Hugo brought up the issue of eyewitness testimony over 100 years ago, why do you think our judicial system, members of the jury, and some of the general public still hold on tightly to the notion that eyewitness accounts are completely factual and trustworthy?
It is so surprising to learn that Munsterberg proved the faults in eyewitness testimony so long ago. I like your question and I think my attempt at an answer will be two-fold. Firstly, I think it is because the field of Psychology, a very legitimate and relevant science, has been and still is today this day, treated like a pseudo-science by many. I don't think people respect Psychology enough and thus tend to dismiss psychologically proven arguments and theories that can be lifesaving. Second, I think that our judicial system has yet to change because we as humans want to believe that we do not make these kinds of drastic mistakes. We want to believe that we know what we see, that we are accurate and that our brain does not play tricks on us. These two unfortunate reasons are probably why the system has yet to change.
ReplyDeleteIt was really interesting to read about Hugo Munsterberg. He definitely accomplished a lot during his lifetime and made some great contribution for society despite his apparent reputation. It was interesting to hear about his research regarding eyewitness testimony and the kinds of experiments he conducted. It’s a topic still relevant today because there is still controversy over the legitimacy of eyewitness testimonies. I think this kind of research Munsterberg conducted really brought awareness to how faulty eyewitness testimonies can be and I’m really curious to see where the future of this will go with it.
ReplyDeleteI have read about him before and really he laid the path for the creation of the lie detector, he is overlooked and has really helped in the field of psychology. But like you stated, once a person reputation is ruined, it's hard to get the credit you deserve. I really think we still use eyewitness accounts because in our courtrooms we need to identify who committed the crime. We need to provide evidence that the criminal was the person who committed the crime, which identification of an eyewitness is used. Yet, there has been scientific proof that it is the worse thing to use in convicting a person. My question is, why do we use eyewitness accounts, which have been proven to be false majority of the time but, we don't use lie detectors, which are more accurate than eyewitness, why don't we use this instead?
ReplyDeleteHow fascinating to hear about Hugo Munsterberg in relation to your topic of eyewitnesses, not to mention that he is known as the “Father of Forensic Psychology.” It’s interesting that students could not recollect dots on a card…such a simple experiment. Eye witnesses recollecting many physical attributes of a human being is far more complex than identifying dots on an index card. I once had to identify a criminal with a few other witnesses and we all had completely different descriptions of the man (I thought he was Hispanic and another person thought he was Black). I ended up telling the detective to not count on my description because I did not want to lead police officials in the wrong direction.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, I think people hold on to the notion that eyewitnesses are factual and trustworthy because they are so eager to catch the perpetrator. People also underestimate how priming and emotions can negatively affect the validity of an eyewitness. Lastly, the pressure put on the eyewitness may lead them to confabulate facts so they can provide answers. I personally do not think that eyewitnesses are all that reliable, and it is scary how much faith people will put on an eyewitness.
First of all, It’s quite interesting to know that Hugo Munsterberg already proved the faults in eyewitness testimony over 100 years ago but it’s really no surprise that our judicial system still hold on strongly to eyewitness accounts. As much as I hate to hear and see innocent people go to jail for what they’ve been wrongly accused of, the question is what other methods are there especially in situations where there are no security cameras to review, finger prints or DNA to go on.
ReplyDeleteOur judicial system is not there yet but I’m sure it will get better with time. There are few other methods we use now that are also effective in identifying a culprit but not around 100 years ago…so in time, I hope!
I think people want to stick to the idea the eye witnesses give facts and reliable information in court because a lot of the way that legal systems work is based around people telling the truth. People have to take oaths and swear they aren't lying in court, and then once they do this everyone believes that they're telling the truth. And most people do tell what they think is the truth, but like you keep pointing out the problem is that what someone thinks is the truth can actually be influenced by a lot of different things.
ReplyDelete