Eyewitness reliablity

• Post-event information - 1st point

  Loftus and palmer

  • ppts in ‘’smashed’’ gave higher speed estimate of 40.8mph
  • ppts in ‘’contacted’’ gave a lower speed estimate of 31.8mph
  • concluded that EW memories made of what we actually see at time and information we relieve afterwards, overtime this is combined to make one memory which may be different

  SUGGESTS

  • Wording of question that EW asked can have an influence on what they think they remember and therefore make it an inaccurate memory
• Post-event information - 1st point counter

  • Some research shows most people retain accurate memory of crime even when fed misleading post event information

  Elizabeth Lotfus:

  • Showed ppts slides of a man stealing red purse from bag, ppts later exposed to misleading information about purse being brown
  • However, 98% correctly remembered the purse being red

  SUGGESTS

  • People are able to remember key details about the crime despite misleading information
  • Suggests EWT issues come from asking them to remember smaller and more detailed memories such as an estimated speed
• Post-event information - 2nd point

  Loftus and Zanni:

  • Found 7% of those asked ‘did you see a broken headlight’ reported seeing one compared to the 17% of those asked ‘did you see the broken headlight’

  SUGGESTS

  • Suggest it is easy for EW memory to be affected by a subtle change in the wording of questions, causing reliability of EWT to become questionable
• Post-event information - 2nd point counter

  • Much of the research suggests EWT are unreliable as they have a lower external validity
  • This is due to them being lab based and the ppts knowing the events they witnessed are not ‘’real’’
  • They therefore didn't have a real emotional response of that of a real EW

  SUGGESTS

  • This suggests that the research into whether EWT are reliability cannot always be useful due to their artificial nature preventing a ‘real’ understanding of memory
• Presence of a weapon - 3rd point

  Loftus et al:

  • Witnesses presented series of slides depicting a fast food restaurant
  • ½ saw customer point gun at cashier other ½ saw customer hand a cheque
  • Experiment 1, 36 uni students (aged 18-31) eye movements recorded whilst viewing slides
  • Those in 'weapon' were fixated on weapon for longer duration, had a poorer memory of incident then cheque condition

  SUGGESTS

  • This suggests that if a weapon is a present through the crime then people are more likely to become so focused in on that, they hold a higher chance of being unable to remember other details
• Presence of a weapon - 3rd point counter

  Yuille and Cutshall:

  • EW to real armed robbery (armed robber stole guns + money from gun shop, owner followed out, thief fired 2 shots, owner fired 6 killing thief)
  • Found they had accurate recollection of what they seen even 4 months after event despite 2 misleading information
  • When gun present the EW were not focussed on weapon to extent they could not accurately notice + recall other details of incidence

  SUGGESTS

  • Suggests memories of EW’s can be trusted to degree, perhaps providing that the crime they witness is one of a much higher degree .e.g murder
• Presence of a weapon - 4th point

  Johnson and Scott:

  • Ppts to lab, receptionist excused herself, ppts heard one of two discussions
  • One where the confederate walked out with pen + greasy hands, other, ppts heard breaking glass,crashing chairs + ran with bloodied letter opener
  • Shown 50 photo + asked to identify the person who left, those in the no weapon correctly identified 49% of the time, compared to weapon condition correctly identified 33% of the time

  SUGGESTS

  • Seeing a weapon when witnessing crime has higher chance of causing person to miss out key details leading to mishaps in their EWT.
• Presence of a weapon - 4th point counter

  • Loftus highlights weaknesses with Johnson and Scott’s study as the 2 conditions differed in so many ways besides whether or not the was a weapon presence
  • E.G. bloodied hands compared to greasy hands, overhearing a hostile conversation compared to a conversation with no hostility
  • Therefore difficult to conclude that it was the presence of a weapon that caused the founded results

  SUGGESTS

  • This suggests that EWT can be reliable source for crime despite there being a weapon present may be other factors which contribute to unreliability
• Emotive experiences - 5th point

  Freud:

  • Argues painful memories are pushed into the unconscious mind
  • This is an example of an ego mechanism called repression, helps the ego manage anxiety but effectively means painful memories are forgotten
  • People are unable to remember reliable details of distressing events, also known as ‘motivated forgetting’, argues people forget unwanted memories either consciously or unconsciously

  SUGGESTS

  • Suggests that EWT may be unreliable if person witnessed a particularly distressing event as memory may start to unconsciously work to protect.
• Emotive experiences - 5th point counter

  • Some argue when we experience emotionally shocking events or those that hold personal significance, we create a accurate and long lasting memory of it, this is known as a flashbulb memory

  Cahill and McGough:

  • Evidence that hormones such as adrenaline may improve storage of memories
  • Found ppts were more likely to recall details of a distressing boy than those who heard a mundane story

  SUGGESTS

  • This suggests that emotions surrounding a crime may actually allow the EW to remember more details and thus improve the reliability.
• Introduction

  • Has been the cause of many wrongful convictions, causing innocent people to spend lengthy time in prison.
  • 1976 Lord Devlin investigated the issue, recommended that none should be convicted on the basis of EWT alone.
  • Despite that further miscarriages of justice occur due to the unreliability of EWT, e.g. William Mills from Glasgow in 2007 spent 6 months in prison for a bank robbery he didn't commit.
• Conclusion

  • Eye-witness testimony alone poses social risks from misidentification.
  • 69% of wrongful convictions result from flawed eye-witness accounts, damaging lives and relationships.
  • UK law allows compensation of £500,000 after 10 years of wrongful imprisonment.
  • Reopening cases for the true perpetrator incurs additional expenses.
  • Eye-witness testimony should be complemented by other evidence.
  • Cognitive interviews improve accuracy by reducing recollection errors.