(12) Unit 2 - Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony (including children)

What is the issue at the heart of this debate?

Fair justice, looking into the factors that may impact an eyewitness’s testimony to reduce the number of wrongful convictions as a result of faulty eyewitnesses.

What is one issue that could effect an eyewitness’s testimony?

That memory can be affected by post event information.

What is post event information?

Information gathered after the witnessed event. This information may be contaminated by other witnesses, the media, leading police questions and more.

What research supports the idea that post event information changes our memory of events?

Loftus and Palmer’s. They conducted a laboratory experiment in which participants were shown 7 health and safety clips of car crashes, followed by 5 verb choices used with different groups. They found that the use of certain verbs impacted and contaminated their perception of speed by 9mph, emphasising the eye witness’s memory can be contaminated easily.

Why is the idea that post event information can contaminate memory important?

Because children are more susceptible to leading questions. Valentine and Coxon (1997) conducted an experiment with 3 participant groups: children (7-9 years old), young adults (16-18 years old) and the elderly (60-85 years old). They watched a video of a kidnapping and were then asked a series of leading and non-leading questions, finding that children were more likely to be misled by misleading questions.

Therefore, what does the previous information suggest about eyewitness testimony?

That eyewitness testimony, particularly from children, isn’t as reliable as it can be affected by information received after the event, for example: media sources, or other witnesses, or even leading questions from police interviews.

On the other hand, what research suggests that post event information doesn’t always affect our memory of crucial information?

Yuille and Cutshall’s case study of a real gun shop robbery in Vancouver. The police case was closed but 13 witnesses agreed to be re-interviewed 5 months later, and their recall was not affected by misleading questions (involving a yellow quarter panel and broken glass).

What does this mean in regards to post event information’s impact on memory?

Only peripheral information is likely to be distorted, but that overall, we will remember the key event correctly.

Therefore, what does the previous information suggest about the impact of post event information on memory in terms of eyewitness reliability?

This evidence would suggest that eyewitness testimony can be reliable, especially if care is taken to make sure the information collected in a non-leading way, e.g. through cognitive interviews. This would benefit society as it would mean that less people would get wrongly convicted of crimes, meaning there would be less money spent on exoneration and retrials which can cost up to £125 million a year, and would mean that society is safer for all.

What is another factor that could affect the reliability of eyewitness testimony?

The age of witnesses, particularly if these are children.

What research suggests that children of a certain age are unreliable?

Pozzulo and Lindsay’s (1998) meta analysis of research that showed that children below the age of 5 are not reliable witnesses when it comes to identifying suspects in a line up. This could be because they have not yet developed full mental processes, including schemas and attention. However, they also found that from aged 5 onwards, children are as reliable as adults at identifying faces and could therefore make good eyewitnesses in court. Additionally, children are more likely to identify someone from a line up, even if the target is not present. This is a key difference to adults which could suggest that children’s testimonies may not be reliable as they may pick the closest fit if the person they are looking for is not in the line up.

Therefore, what could be argued in terms of children’s eyewitness testimonies based on the previous information?

That children are overall less reliable than adults, and more likely to wrongly identify a perpetrator which could result in wrongful convictions. The economic impact of this could be that retrials and appeals need to take place, which would be a cost to tax payers and the government of £125 million a year, with crime costing £125 billion a year.

Nevertheless, what research contradicts that children will make unreliable witnesses?

Davies et al (1989) study entailed 128 children (6-7 years and 10-11 years) took part individually in a simulated health check procedure between the child and the adult stranger in which the child was touched and their shoes removed. One week later, children gave testimony of this event. The two age groups did not differ in the construction of Photofit pictures and showed no difference in performance on identification from a photographic array.

What does this mean in regards to children’s eyewitness testimony?

Children are likely to be able to provide accurate and reliable evidence.

Therefore, what could we say about children’s eyewitness testimonies based on the above information?

They should not be completely ignored or dismissed as they may be important and valuable witnesses.

Finally, what is another factor that could impact eyewitness testimony?

Reconstructive memory. Memory is not fixed, but rather reconstructive.

What research suggests that our schemas influence what we recall?

Tuckey (2003) shows that our crime schema influences recall. Witnesses were interviewed multiple times after seeing a video of a simulated bank robbery. Schema-irrelevant information showed greater decay with ambiguous parts of the crime. witnesses used their schema to interpret information and as a result, made more schema-consistent mistakes. This shows that witnesses draw upon their schema when situations are unclear making them unreliable to witnesses.

What does this mean when applied to eyewitness testimonies?

Witness’s schemas based on their previous experience could affect their ability to correctly identify suspects, leading them to distort their memory of the vent and make their testimonies unreliable.

Therefore, based on the above information, what does this suggest about eyewitness testimonies?

That they are unreliable as our memory of events is likely to be a mix of what really happened, and our pre-existing schemas.

On the other hand, what research showed that adults, but not children were more likely to draw upon their schema when recalling an event?

Otgaar et al (2014) conducted a laboratory experiment using a video of a non-violent bank robbery. This video included some details (the culprit) but left out other details (the weapon). Children and adult participants were then presented with incorrect information about the missing details (a gun). Adults were more likely to recall the incorrect information as it was consistent with their schema of a bank robbery.

What does this research suggest about adults in comparison to children?

That children’s memories are less influenced by schemas.

Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, what could we conclude in regards to children’s and adult’s eyewitness testimony?

Children’s eyewitness testimonies are more reliable than adults and can be used in court cases. This has positive ethical implications because children witness domestic violence amongst other crimes that would go unreported without eyewitness testimony.