Davis et al., (2008) provide a new conceptual take on unconscious transference, postulating that this phenomenon may, under certain circumstances, result from change blindness. Unconscious transference, in which identifying an innocent person who is familiar instead of a perpetrator, has been received little to moderate empirical support. The literature in the field of eyewitness identification research has shown support for the existence of this phenomenon, yet the question of its reliable observance via empirical investigation is immersed in controversy.
This study incorporates a concept from the research areas of perception and attention, called change blindness, to view unconscious transference as a type of perceptual illusion carried out by our own brains. Change blindness refers to the modification of some aspect of a visual scene, after which there is either another component added to the scene or removed from the scene. Typically, if a visual scene is occluded and a change occurs while the scene is occluded from our visual field, humans have a difficult time noticing the change (Levin & Simon, 2000). In reference to unconscious transference, if one person, initially detected by another person in the visual field, is removed and replaced with another, typically in close temporal proximity, the person who detected the first person may think that he and the replacement second are one in the same person. Understandably, this can cause problems regarding eyewitness identifications in which innocent bystanders are seen in close temporal proximity to the perpetrator of a crime.
To examine this experimentally, Davis et al., (2008) conducted a field study at a supermarket in which they had a person (continuous innocent, CI) walking down a liquor aisle in the store, then go behind a stack of boxes, while simultaneously another person (perpetrator) emerged to pocket a bottle of wine. This tape also had a person (discontinuous innocent, DI) in a different aisle picking out a piece of fruit. Participants, after viewing this video engaged in a filler task, were shown a target absent lineup with including both the CI and the DI, and were asked to identify the person who stole the bottle of wine from the liquor aisle. The authors hypothesized that due to an illusion of continuity stemming from the change blindness, witnesses would perceive the CI and the perpetrator to be the same person, and thus anticipated a greater proportion of misidentification for the CI compared to the DI (also viewed in the mock-crime video).
In their first experiment, they found that the CI was erroneously chosen at a greater rate compared to the DI by participants who did not notice the change from the CI to the perpetrator. Two other experiments using the same procedure but with variations in the members included in the lineup presented were conducted and by in large replicated the results obtained in the first study. Clearly, viewing the phenomenon of unconscious transference as an instance of change blindness and failures in scene perception is a beneficial manner of exploring this rather unreliable effect.
By DP
Well I found it interesting how the people in the different experiments misidentified the innocent as the perpetrator. This was interesting, because it makes you think about when you see someone and just can’t put your finger on where you’ve seen them. Kind of miss interpreting the innocent as the perpetrator. An example would be when I took my son to Cold Stone and I saw someone there that I knew I had just seen recently. The other person with us also recognized the same person. He stated the person was in our class, I found it amusing how I could not for the life of me remember where I had seen her.
As for the article I found it interesting who they gave two examples of experiments. I really found the one where people didn’t notice the change in the person they were giving directions to after the people with the table walked between them. I found the store experiment interesting as well, but it made me think about how I forget where I’ve seen a person as well. Kind of like picking and innocent rather than a perpetrator in a line up.
What I can take with me from this article is the fact that we all make misidentifications regardless of the situation. Unfortunately when someone’s life hangs in the balance for freedom and incarceration it would be nerve racking. Mostly, because of this knowledge that I now have. I wouldn’t want to ruin someone’s life for my misinterpretation as them being a perpetrator.
As for a research idea the article mentioned, “The change blindness and inattentional blindness.” I think this would be good to understand how people don’t notice change when it seems to be continuous rather than have some sort of cut off. I believe we all can make mistakes, but it would be better to understand how and why we do this. Mostly, for the sake of an innocent person being misidentified in case that might send them to prison.
By Chris M