The reliability of eyewitness testimony (including children) Flashcards
Eye-witnesses ARE reliable: Post-event information
Eye-witness research can be misleading as it often focuses on details that are difficult to estimate, such as speed or non-central details, which can increase corruption risk. Additionally, not all research indicates that post-event information is misleading. Loftus participants were later exposed to information containing sublte errors or a more obvious one, purporting that the purse was brown. Although participants were often wrong about ‘peripheral’ items, 98% of the participants correctly remembered the purse they had seen was red. The study suggests that eye-witness recollection for key details may be more resistant to post-event information distortion than previously thought.
Eye-witness ARE NOT reliable: Post-event information
In Loftus and Palmer’s study, ‘suggested’ information after the event became incorporated into the original memory. Loftus and Zanni (1975) also demonstrated the effects of such post event information. They found that 7% of those asked ‘Did you see a broken headlight?’ reported seeing one, whereas 17% of those asked ‘Did you see the broken headlight?’ reported seeing a headlight. The post-event information was the word ‘a’ or ‘the’. The research reveals that even minor changes in wording can affect a witness’s recollection of an event, suggesting that when questioned by police, lawyers, or friends, their actual event may be distorted.
Eye-witnesses ARE reliable: Crime are emotive experiences
According to some psychologists, highly emotional or personally significant events can create very accurate and long-lasting memories, known as flashbulb memories. Evidence that the hormones associated with emotion like adrenaline, may enhance the storage of memories (Cahill and McGaughn,1995). This suggests that the emotion surrounding a crime may actually lead to more, rather than less reliable memories.
Eye-witnesses ARE NOT reliable: Crime are emotive experiences
Eye-witnesses may not be reliable due to unexpected and emotionally traumatizing crimes. Freud’s theory suggests that painful or threatening memories are forced into the unconscious mind through repression, an ego-defence mechanism. This process, now known as ‘motivated forgetting’, may make eye-witnesses unreliable because the memory of the crime is too traumatising.
Eye-witnesses ARE reliable: Child witnesses are reliable
Davis et al (1989) reviewed the literature discussing children used as witnesses. They concluded that children between the ages of 6- 7, and 10-11, were fairly accurate in their memories of an event, they don’t usually ‘make things up’, and they don’t deliberately lie when giving a testimony. In addition, adult suggestion does not significantly alter a child’s memory of important details post-event. Research often uses adults as the ‘target’, making it unfair to claim that child eye-witnesses are unreliable. Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) discovered that all age groups are most accurate in recognising offenders from their age group, suggesting that child witnesses who witnessed staged crimes may be more reliable in their identifications. This challenges previous claims made by other researchers and proves that child eye-witnesses aren’t unreliable.
Eye-witnesses ARE NOT reliable: Child witnesses are reliable
Researchers are investigating the reliability of children as accurate eyewitnesses due to their tendency towards fantasy and potential influence from others. Eyewitnesses are now informed that line-ups may or may not include the target individual, as suspects may be selected based on inaccurate descriptions, ensuring accurate identification and interpretation. Pozzulo and Lindsay meta-analyisis’s (1998) drew data from several studies that tested over 2000 participants. They revealed that children under 5 are less likely to correctly identify targets when the target is present, while children aged 5-13 have no significant difference from adults in target-present condition but are more likely to make wrong choices. Children often feel unable to say ‘no’, when answering questions leading to a false positive response due to their sensitivity
Eye-witnesses ARE reliable: Memory may be reconstructive, but that doesn’t mean it is unreliable
In many crimes, eyewitnesses often know the perpetrator of crimes, reducing the need to rely on their schemas. For example, RapeCrisis reports that 90% of rapists are known to their victims, indicating the reliability of eyewitness identification, even in traumatic crimes. Yuille and Cutshall’s research demonstrates that eyewitnesses’ accuracy in real-life crimes is significantly higher than laboratory-based research. They found that eyewitness recollections did not fade over time and were not susceptible to leading questions, indicating that memory is not as reconstructive as previously thought.
Eye-witnesses ARE NOT reliable: Memory is reconstructive
Schemas help us in quick information processing, but they can distort our memory of an event. For instance, in a ‘criminal’ schema, we may form expectations based on news reports, movies, and television programs about a criminal’s appearance. These expectations can become incorporated in our memory, potentially leading to inaccurate recall of information when needed later. Yarmey (1993) asked 240 students to look at videos of 30 unknown males and classifying them as ‘good guys’ or ‘bad guys’. The results showed high agreement, indicating similarity in information stored in the ‘bad guy’ and ‘good guy’ schemas. This suggests that preconceived ideas about criminal facial features may influence decision-making in line-ups or photo arrays, suggesting eyewitnesses may not select the actual criminal but the individual who looks most like a criminal.
Ethical implications
Huff et al. (1986) found that 60% of 500 mainly American cases of wrongful convictions involved eye-witness identification errors. This suggests that excessive reliance on eye-witness testimony has significant ethical implications, but it also poses innate risks due to excessive skepticism. Greene (1990) found that mock juries, who were asked to determine a perpetrator’s guilt or innocence based on eye-witness testimony, some were more sceptical due to their knowledge of misidentification mistakes, which they learned from the news. Eye-witnesses play a crucial role in providing information in any crime its important to pay attention to the evidence.
Economical implications
Unreliable eyewitness testimony has huge costs in terms of retrials and compensation to exonerates. The economic costs of crimes in the UK are recently estimated about €124 billion per year (Institute of Economics and Peace, 2013); this equates to 7.7% of UK’s GDP.
Social implications
Unreliable eyewitness testimony poses a significant risk to society, as the real perpetrator of a crime is allowed to remain free.
