Final answer:
Eyewitnesses commonly report contradictory versions of events due to memory being influenced by suggestibility and misinformation. Studies by Loftus and others demonstrate that eyewitness memory can be altered by the way questions are phrased, leading to inaccurate recollections and false memories.
Step-by-step explanation:
It's common for eyewitnesses to report contradictory versions of the events that they saw. This phenomenon is attributed to the flexibility and fallibility of human memory, as illustrated by the work of Loftus and Palmer. Their experiment highlighted the misinformation effect, demonstrating how suggestive questioning can alter an eyewitness's recall. For example, witnesses estimating car speeds provided different answers based on the verbs used ('smashed,' 'collided,' 'bumped,' 'hit,' 'contacted') in the question, reflecting how memory can be influenced by the phrasing of a question.
The fragility of memory is further emphasized by cases such as the DC area sniper attacks, where amidst public fear and a bombardment of tips, suggestibility can easily lead to the generation of false memories. Similarly, in high-profile news cases, bias by selection of sources can skew public perception. The presentation of expert opinions often reflects the political lens or agenda of the reporting journalist. Thus, bias in eyewitness accounts and news reporting necessitates a critical approach to distinguishing fact from misinformation.
Finally, the role of personal testimony is noteworthy, as experiences can be profoundly impactful in forming opinions and shaping memories. However, over time, even vivid 'flashbulb memories' of significant events can become inaccurate, as reflected by misrecollections of incidents like the 9/11 attacks by prominent figures. Therefore, the reliability of eyewitness reports must be critically evaluated, considering the pervasive problem of suggestive and false memories.