Psychodynamic Debate: EWT Flashcards
INTRODUCTION TO DEBATE
Loftus has been a pioneer of memory research since the 1970’s. She has dedicated her life’s work to understanding how memory can reconstructed.
The result of this can have catastrophic consequences when giving evidence as an eyewitness to a crime in a court of law.
Therefore, there is still much debate regarding whether eyewitness testimony can be relied upon as evidence to criminal behaviour
POINT 1/3 weapon focus| FOR |outline
One reason why EWT could be considered unreliable is due to the concept of weapons focus. This refers to the idea that the presence of a weapon can distract witnesses and reduce the accuracy of their recall of other details about the event.
POINT 1/3 weapon focus | FOR | example
Loftus et al. (1987) conducted a lab experiment to test the impact of weapons focus on accuracy of recall. Participants were shown a scenario where either a weapon (a gun) or a neutral object (a cheque) was present.
Participants in the weapon condition focused more on the weapon and had poorer recall of peripheral details.
POINT 1/3 weapon focus|FOR | ethical implication
However, as the experiment was conducted in a lab, it lacks ecological validity. Witnesses may react differently in real-life situations with heightened emotions.
Being aware of the impact that weapon focus can have on the reliability of EWT can have important social implications. If we know that this can be a problem, we may be able to educate potential witnesses of the effect to mitigate it’s impact (e.g. bank tellers, shop workers). Research has shown that those taught about weapon focus can overcome it
POINT 1/3 weapon focus FOR | link
Therefore, while this study suggests that the presence of a weapon reduces reliability in EWT, the artificiality of the lab environment limits the generalizability of these findings.
POINT 1/3 weapon focus| AGAINST | outline
However, there is also evidence to suggest that the presence of a weapon does not affect the accuracy of recall.
POINT 1/3 weapon focus| AGAINST | example
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) conducted a case study of a shooting at a Canadian gun shop. Witnesses were interviewed months after the event.
They found that the presence of a weapon did not negatively affect accuracy; most details provided by witnesses were consistent with police records.
POINT 1/3 weapon focus| AGAINST | ethical implication
As this was a case study, it provides high ecological validity due to the real-life setting, but findings may lack generalizability as it only examined one event.
Being aware of the impact that weapon focus can have on the reliability of EWT can have important social implications. If we know that this can be a problem, we may be able to educate potential witnesses of the effect to mitigate it’s impact (e.g. bank tellers, shop workers). Research has shown that those taught about weapon focus can overcome it
POINT 1/3 weapon focus| AGAINST | link
Therefore, this evidence suggests that EWT can be reliable even in the presence of a weapon because it reflects real-world accuracy. If we educate people on the weapon focus effect, we may be able to reduce it’s impact on EWT.
POINT 2/3 leading questions| FOR | outline
Leading questions can influence witnesses by suggesting specific answers, making EWT less reliable.
POINT 2/3 leading questions| FOR | example
Loftus and Palmer (1974) investigated the impact of leading questions by showing participants videos of car accidents and asking questions with different verbs (e.g., “smashed” vs. “hit”).
The verb used influenced participants’ speed estimates and whether they falsely recalled seeing broken glass
POINT 2/3 leading questions| FOR |social implication
The findings have significant implications for how police and legal professionals question witnesses. It highlights the need for caution in phrasing questions to avoid unintentionally influencing memory, potentially reducing wrongful convictions.
POINT 2/3 leading questions| FOR | link
Thus, leading questions demonstrate the unreliability of EWT, but this research also provides guidance for improving legal practice
POINT 2/3 leading questions| AGAINST | outline
Some research suggests that leading questions do not always distort memory.
POINT 2/3 leading questions| AGAINST | example
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) found that even when witnesses to a real-life shooting were asked misleading questions, their recall remained accurate months later.
POINT 2/3 leading questions| AGAINST | lab issue
This means that memory during real-life, high-pressure events might be more reliable than what lab experiments suggest. This is reassuring for trusting eyewitness testimony (EWT) in serious criminal cases. However, it also raises concerns that rules based on lab studies might be too strict.
POINT 2/3 leading questions| AGAINST | link
Therefore, in real-world settings, EWT can still be reliable despite exposure to leading questions, but practices must consider context.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| FOR | outline
Reconstructive memory suggests that witnesses’ memories are influenced by schemas, leading to distortions. For example, people may unconsciously “fill in the gaps” based on their expectations or stereotypes.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| FOR | example
Yarmey found that participants were likely to describe suspects as fitting stereotypical criminal profiles, such as picking a “bad guy.”
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| FOR | social implication
The reliance on reconstructive memory could perpetuate stereotypes in the justice system, disproportionately impacting marginalized groups.
This highlights a critical need for awareness and training in order to avoid bias in legal procedures.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| FOR | link
Thus, reconstructive memory demonstrates that EWT can be unreliable due to schema distortions, with far-reaching implications for fairness in the legal system.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory AGAINST | outline
However, in some real-world cases, memory recall remains accurate despite the potential influence of schemas.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| AGAINST | example
Yuille and Cutshall (1986) found that even after months, witnesses to a real-life shooting recalled events accurately and consistently, unaffected by reconstructive memory errors.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| AGAINST | ethical implication
An ethical implication is that relying on EWT as reliable in cases of serious crimes can reduce the trauma experienced by victims. If EWT is considered credible in real-world situations, it may prevent victims from having to repeatedly justify their accounts, reducing the psychological burden during the legal process.
POINT 3/3 reconstructive memory| AGAINST | link
Therefore, while schema-driven errors may occur in controlled settings, real-world events suggest that EWT can still be reliable, with ethical considerations supporting its use in the justice system.
