cognitive approach contemporary debate Flashcards
introduction
Eyewitness testimony (EWT) is a legal term referring to the use of eyewitnesses giving evidence in court, perhaps identifying a criminal or giving a statement. Despite its importance in criminal convictions, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is widely debated. Some psychologists argue that eyewitnesses are incapable of accurately remembering events due to post-event information, emotional trauma, and children’s suggestibility, making EWT unreliable and potentially dangerous in criminal convictions. Conversely, evidence suggests that EWT can be accurate under certain conditions.
para 1: post event information (unreliable)
Post-event information can significantly distort eyewitness memory, making EWT unreliable. Loftus and Palmer demonstrated this by showing that subtle changes in wording (e.g., “smashed” vs. “hit”) affected participants’ speed estimates in a car accident, highlighting how misleading questions can alter memory recall. Loftus and Zanni (1975) also found that using “the” instead of “a” increased false recollections. When asked “did you see a broken headlight” 7% said yes whereas when asked “did you see the broken headlight” 17% said yes, showing how post event information can become integrated into the original memory, leading to inaccuracies. This suggests that EWT is highly susceptible to distortion, particularly during police questioning or courtroom examinations, directly supporting the statement that eyewitnesses are incapable of remembering and recalling accurate information of an event. The social implications are significant, as distorted testimonies can lead to wrongful convictions, undermining public trust in the justice system. Economically, this results in costly retrials and compensation for miscarriages of justice. Ethical issues also arise when innocent individuals face imprisonment due to unreliable EWT. Consequently, the evidence strongly supports the argument that EWT is often unreliable due to post event information.
para 2: post event information (reliable)
Contrary to this, some research suggests that eyewitnesses can accurately recall events even when exposed to misleading post event information. Loftus (1979) found that participants who saw a bright red purse accurately remembered its color, despite later exposure to contradictory information suggesting it was purple. Notably, 98% correctly identified the purse’s color, indicating that while peripheral details may be distorted, central, more vivid details are retained. This challenges the claim that EWT is always unreliable and suggests that eyewitnesses can resist memory contamination for significant details. This has practical implications, as recognising the accuracy of central details ensures valuable EWT is not unjustly dismissed. In the UK, this is reflected in the cautious use of EWT alongside supporting evidence, demonstrating a balanced approach that values accurate testimony while minimising wrongful convictions. Therefore, the argument that eyewitnesses are always unreliable is not entirely accurate, as they can be reliable under certain conditions.
para 3: crimes are emotive experiences (unreliable)
Crimes are often unexpected and traumatic, potentially impairing memory accuracy. Freud suggested that traumatic experiences are repressed into the unconscious as a defense mechanism, a concept now referred to as motivated forgetting. This implies that painful memories may be recalled inaccurately or not at all. Supporting this, research shows that witnesses to violent crimes often recall fewer details than neutral observers due to emotional shock impairing memory encoding and retrieval. This challenges the reliability of EWT, as emotional distress can lead to incomplete or distorted memories. Socially, this raises concerns about justice and fairness, as wrongful convictions based on unreliable testimony can lead to community distrust in the legal system. Economically, the cost of appeals and retrials due to incorrect verdicts places a financial burden on the criminal justice system. Ethically, relying on potentially flawed testimony from traumatised witnesses could cause them additional, unnecessary psychological harm. Consequently, the emotional impact of crimes supports the argument that EWT is often unreliable.
para 4: crimes are emotive experiences (reliable)
Conversely, emotional events can enhance memory accuracy through flashbulb memories, which are vivid, detailed recollections of shocking events. This is supported by the Yerkes-Dodson Law, suggesting that moderate emotional arousal enhances memory retention. Christianson and Hubinette (1993) found that witnesses to real-life bank robberies had highly accurate recall even months later, suggesting that emotional significance strengthens memory encoding. This contradicts the argument that trauma impairs memory and instead shows that emotionally significant events are more likely to be remembered accurately. In practice, this reliability of emotionally vivid memories supports the continued use of EWT in cases involving violent crime, where the witness’s emotional state may enhance recall. However, care must be taken to avoid over-reliance on EWT, as not all emotional experiences result in accurate flashbulb memories. This challenges the statement by demonstrating that EWT can be reliable when emotional arousal enhances memory.
para 5: children are unreliable
Child witnesses are often considered unreliable due to their vulnerability to suggestion and a tendency to confuse fantasy with reality. Pozzulo and Lindsay (1998) found that children under 5 were less accurate in identifying suspects, particularly in target-absent line-ups, possibly due to a desire to please authority figures. Additionally, children aged 5-13 were more likely to make a choice in the target-absent condition, showing a higher risk of false identifications. This suggests that children are more prone to memory distortion and less likely to accurately reject suspects who were not present. Ethically, this raises concerns about the potential for miscarriages of justice based on inaccurate child testimonies. Socially, it questions the reliability of child witnesses in sensitive cases, such as abuse trials. Therefore, the evidence supports the statement that EWT is unreliable when provided by children.
para 6: children are reliable
However, evidence suggests that child witnesses can be accurate under specific conditions. Davies et al. (1989) found that children aged 6-11 could recall events accurately without fabricating details and were not easily influenced by adult suggestions. Real-world cases, such as Alex Hanscombe’s accurate identification of his mother’s murderer at age 3, demonstrate the reliability of child witnesses. Alex had remembered that his mothers murderer was wearing a white shirt and had a black bag which was essential to the police when they found the murderer. In the UK, the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999) introduced special measures like video recorded interviews to minimise suggestibility, allowing children to provide accurate testimonies in a supportive environment. This balanced approach acknowledges children’s reliability when questioned appropriately, ensuring valuable EWT is not unjustly dismissed. This counters the statement by showing that child EWT can be reliable when handled carefully.
conclusion
In conclusion, the reliability of eyewitness testimony is complex and context dependent. Research shows that EWT can be unreliable due to post-event information, emotional trauma, and children’s suggestibility, supporting the statement. However, other evidence demonstrates accuracy when central details are recalled, emotional arousal enhances memory, and children are questioned appropriately. In the UK, legal safeguards like PACE (1984) and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999) reflect an evolving understanding of these complexities. Ethically, wrongful convictions due to unreliable EWT carry severe consequences, while economically, they result in costly appeals and compensation. Therefore, EWT should be supported with other evidence to ensure accurate convictions, leading to the conclusion that EWT is not always unreliable but must be used cautiously, partially agreeing with the statement.
