Crime blindness: The impact of inattentional blindness on eyewitness awareness, memory, and identification

Abstract

People do not constantly watch for accidents and crimes. With their attention focused elsewhere, potential witnesses may fail to notice a crime and experience inattentional blindness. We investigated the impact of inattentional blindness on eyewitness awareness and memory. Participants watched a video in which a theft occurs. We manipulated the attentional focus of the participants-some watched for the crime, others simply watched the video, and some counted the number of people wearing white shirts. Participants counting white shirts and those simply watching more often experienced inattentional blindness for the crime and failed to identify the culprit than those watching for the theft. Participants, particularly those watching for the theft, often falsely identified an innocent bystander, displaying a potential unconscious transference effect. Attention plays a critical role in eyewitness awareness and memory. Eyewitness researchers should investigate situations in which people are not explicitly watching for a crime or accident.

The effect of pre-event instructions on eyewitness identification

“…Wulff and Hyman ( 2022 ) manipulated pre-event instructions in a crime blindness study. Crime blindness refers to inattentional blindness for a crime, wherein a person does not notice a crime though it is available to be noticed in their visual field (Hyman et al, 2018 ).…”

The problem of a hammer: Eyewitness identification research relies on the wrong comparisons.

“…In these studies, people are exposed to an innocent suspect in some fashion. Perhaps the innocent suspect was present at the original event but was not the culprit (Davies & Hine, 2007; Davis et al, 2008; Loftus, 1976; Ross et al, 1994; Wulff & Hyman, 2021; but also see Read et al, 1990). In other studies, the witness saw photos of the innocent suspect afterward (Brown et al, 1977; Deffenbacher et al, 2006; Dysart et al, 2001; Perfect & Harris, 2003).…”

“…In still other designs, the witness was provided misleading information regarding critical features about the innocent suspect (Jenkins & Davies, 1985; Loftus & Greene, 1980; Searcy et al, 2000). In these studies, witnesses will often select the innocent person and may do so with high levels of confidence (Hyman et al, 2018; Wulff & Hyman, 2021).…”

“…Our research is underpowered for an ROC analysis, but the pattern is clear. In some contexts, an innocent suspect will be selected with high confidence (Wulff & Hyman, 2021). But more importantly, signal detection theory and ROC analysis is the wrong approach when considering lineups with innocent suspects.…”

“…People may mistakenly fail to realize that two people were distinct and instead display a change blindness error resulting in an identification error (e.g., Davis et al, 2008). In other cases, people may realize the culprit and the innocent person are distinct but nonetheless rely on familiarity when making an identification (e.g., Wulff & Hyman, 2021). Furthermore, people may integrate information from multiple sources into a single memory of the perpetrator resulting in false identifications (Searcy et al, 2000; Memon et al, 2003).…”