Perspective Taking

Perspective Taking

Perspective-taking in psychology refers to the ability to perceive a situation from an alternative point of view. We are not born with this ability. It develops throughout childhood. There are two broad types of perspectives that we learn: differing physical perspectives, such as that the view out of your neighbor’s window is different than yours; and conceptual perspectives, such as that people have different feelings or beliefs that in turn influence their perspectives. Some conditions can negatively impact the development of the ability to fully understand a different perspective. And although the vast majority of us are capable of appreciating the wide variety of perspectives that exist, we are often lazy about developing this ability.

When considering an eyewitness testimony during a trial, there are many aspects to consider in order to understand that person’s perspective. First, there are the physical aspects—how good is that person’s vision? What was the light like at the time? How long did they have to observe the person in question? But there are also a host of psychological ones—what mood was the person in? Were they rushing to get somewhere? Had they just had a fight with their spouse? Do they have an incentive to take a certain position? And what about the biases—do they consider certain ethnicities as more likely to commit crime? How predisposed are they to being helpful to police? All of this factors into what a witness believes they saw and helps explain why two witnesses can have remarkably different accounts of the same situation, as in Rashomon.

Rashomon, the classic Japanese film, is an excellent exploration of the differences in the testimonies of several eyewitnesses to a crime. A samurai is found murdered in a forest. A bandit is accused of the crime. During the subsequent trial, the bandit, the samurai—speaking through a medium—his wife, and a woodcutter who observed the whole incident each give testimony. Each story is different, partly due to the self-interest of each of the characters, and partly due to the fact that each can only understand the events that play out through a single perspective—their own. Rashomon is exceptionally interesting because the end does not give the viewer “the truth.” The audience does not get any closure on what actually happened, which is an accurate portrayal of life. They are simply left with the contradictory testimonies and the implication that each of these have become the truth for the persons telling them.

In addition, our memories are not infallible. We often think of memories as being like a video recording, capturing a scene with perfect fidelity. The truth is far more complicated. Our memories are highly subjective and malleable. We often misattribute memories, such as a witness thinking something they read in the news about a crime is something they witnessed. We are also highly suggestible, such as when a police officer asks us a leading question or uses emotive language.

Our memories of the past are also distorted by what we know now, such as when a witness learns a new piece of information during a case and feels they knew it at the time. These and other common memory distortions feed into the subjectivity of eyewitness reports. People rewrite and reshape their memories, often to fit their existing beliefs. We often feel committed to our original perception and unconsciously adjust our memories to support what we think we originally saw.

When juries hear eyewitness testimony, they must sort through the limits and influences on that person’s perspective, and how self-interest and time have distorted that person’s memory. It is no small feat. One example of the challenge is chronicled below.

In Neiwert’s account, on the morning of July 4, 2000, 20-year-old Chris Kinison was killed in a convenience store parking lot in Ocean Shores, Washington, USA. Minh Duc Hong was charged with the crime. Hong was visiting the area to see a firework show with his twin, Hung Hong. Both were Asian-Americans and Kinison was white. During the subsequent trial, a dozen eyewitnesses provided testimony. As David A. Neiwert explains in Death on the Fourth of July, “For every bit of testimony, it sometimes seemed, there arose a view of events that conflicted with the description provided by previous witnesses, creating a web of questions about competing self-interests, and the extent to which they colored different witnesses’ testimony.” Many witnesses described seeing things they physically could not have once their positioning during the violence was mapped out. Others were clearly biased by their relationship with the victim, a local, versus the accused who was from out of town. Racial bias was a huge factor, and in his book, Neiwert makes the case for Hong first being a victim of a hate crime and whose subsequent actions were really about defense.

According to witnesses, Kinison waved a Confederate battle flag at Hong and his friends and shouted racial slurs. He also made threatening gestures, indicating a desire to harm Hong who took a knife from the convenience store, fearing for his safety. When Kinison physically assaulted Hong’s brother, Hong used the knife on him. Kinison had previous accusations of racist violent threats.

Many of the witnesses had been drinking, and many admitted to being scared. These distortions meant that the jury did not get a reliable, consistent account from each witness. They had to piece together what might have happened. The jury then had to evaluate the credibility of how each witness saw the crime and the laws of physics governing the physical perspectives. One life had already ended. The future of another one was completely dependent on how the jury untangled the testimony through the limits of their own perceptions.

After deliberation, the jury could not reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial. The jury revealed that they had deadlocked 11-1 in favor of acquittal. What’s interesting, though, is the ambiguous end to the story. Jurors who favored acquittal remained comfortable with their position that Minh Hong had acted reasonably in self-defense. The local sheriff’s office recognized that Minh Hong had been the victim of a hate crime and the officers committed to an education program so they could deal with similar situations better in the future. But, Neiwert further writes, “if there is any lingering sentiment in Ocean Shores, it is a quiet dismay at the outcome of Minh Hong’s trial. Even though the Grays Harbor jury found otherwise, many in town, especially those who knew Chris Kinison, believe an injustice was done.”

The multiple and conflicting perspectives displayed in the trial of Minh Hong are a common phenomenon. We have all been in situations where we have a totally different perspective on events than the person standing next to us. It’s important to be aware of and compensate for different perspectives if you want to get the most complete picture possible of the situation you are in. What you see is never all there is.

« John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.” »

Isaac Asimov