debate - EWT

introduction

• EWT is important because juries often rely on eyewitness accounts when deciding verdicts.

• Despite this, EWT is frequently unreliable.

• The Innocence Project reports that over 75% of overturned wrongful convictions in the USA involved inaccurate eyewitness identification.

• This shows how easily memory errors can lead to false convictions.

• Therefore, empirical research is crucial to understand and improve the reliability of EWT in the criminal justice system (Wells, 1978).

leading question - ewt is unreliable

• Leading questions reduce EWT reliability.

• Loftus & Palmer (1974): wording changed speed estimates — “smashed” = 40.8 mph, “contacted” = 31.8 mph.

• Loftus & Zanni (1975): “the” broken headlight = 17%, “a” broken headlight = 7% — no headlight existed → false memories created.

• Limitation: research is artificial lab‑based, so may not generalise to real‑life crimes.

• Economic impact: unreliable EWT leads to costly appeals, retrials, compensation, wasting resources.

• Ethical impact: risks wrongful convictions and undermines witness autonomy.

• Conclusion: highlights need for objective, scientifically robust evidence in the legal system.

leadign question EWT is reliable

• EWT can be reliable in real‑life settings.

• Yuille & Cutshall (1986): interviewed 13 witnesses to a real armed robbery 4 months later.

• Despite misleading questions, witnesses’ accounts remained highly accurate and matched original statements.

• Shows leading questions have less impact when the event is emotionally significant and memorable.

• Suggests EWT can be reliable and useful in criminal investigations.

• Social impact: accurate EWT increases public confidence in justice and helps identify genuine offenders.

• Overall: when accuracy is high and procedures safeguard fairness, EWT remains a valuable tool despite issues raised by lab studies.

leading question mini conclusion

• Research into leading questions has had a positive social impact, leading to the development of the cognitive interview, which avoids leading questions and improves EWT accuracy.

• Geiselman (1999): cognitive interviews produce more accurate recall than standard interviews → shows EWT can be reliable when proper techniques are used.

• Limitation: cognitive interviews are time‑consuming, and police may avoid them due to resource pressures (Ainsworth, 1998).

the roel of emotiuon - EWT is unreliable

• Witnesses often experience intense emotions (fear, anger) during crimes.

• High emotional arousal can impair memory, making EWT less accurate.

• Deffenbacher et al. (2004): meta‑analysis found high stress reduces accuracy of eyewitness recall.

• Suggests EWT may be unreliable when emotions are extreme.

• Therefore, emotional interference means EWT should be treated with caution in criminal cases.

the rolele of emotion - EWT is reliable

• Emotion can also enhance memory, making EWT more reliable in some cases.

• Christianson & Hubinette (1993): witnesses threatened during real bank robberies showed better recall than bystanders who were not directly involved.

• Suggests high emotional arousal can improve accuracy, especially when the event is personally significant.

• Indicates that EWT can be reliable in real‑life crimes and may support accurate criminal convictions.

weapon focus - EWT is unreliable

• Weapon focus effect: witnesses often focus on a weapon, reducing recall of other details (e.g., face, clothing).

• First noted by Loftus, who observed that witnesses describe the weapon more accurately than the perpetrator.

• Hope & Wright (2007): participants viewed slides of a man with a wallet (control), feather duster (unusual), or gun (weapon).

  • Weapon condition → accurate object recall, but poorer recall of other event details.

• Shows EWT can be unreliable when a weapon is present because attention is drawn away from critical identifying information.

• Economic impact: weapon‑focus errors can lead to costly appeals, retrials, and extended investigations, diverting resources and delaying justice.

weapon focus - EWT is reliable

• People react differently to shocking events — some stay calm, others experience manageable arousal.

• These individual differences align with the Yerkes–Dodson law: moderate arousal can enhance performance and memory.

• Witnesses who remain calm or moderately aroused may encode and recall events accurately, making EWT reliable in some cases.

• Social impact: reliable EWT helps identify offenders and supports public safety, strengthening trust in the justice system.

• Although peripheral details may suffer, weapon focus can still provide accurate, crucial information (e.g., weapon type), supporting reliable testimony.

weapon focus - mini conclusion

• Because emotional arousal and weapon focus vary between individuals, EWT is often unreliable.

• Huff et al. (1986): around 60% of wrongful convictions involved EWT errors → major ethical concern.

• Devlin Committee (1976): found 74 convictions based solely on eyewitness evidence, showing juries place too much weight on EWT.

• Recommended judges warn juries about relying on a single eyewitness, especially where weapon focus or emotional arousal may distort memory.

children as eyewitnesses - EWT is unreliable

• Children are often seen as unreliable witnesses because they are prone to fantasy and highly suggestible.

• Researchers study children’s accuracy in tasks like line‑ups to assess reliability.

• Kent & Yuille (1987):

  • Children asked to identify a person from a photo set.

  • 9‑year‑olds were more likely than 14‑year‑olds to choose someone even when the target wasn’t present.

  • Suggests younger children struggle to say “not present” and may feel pressured to pick someone.

• Earlier research shows children as young as 5 can recognise people they’ve seen, so the issue is not memory, but social pressure and compliance.

• Overall, children’s EWT is often unreliable due to limited cognitive development and high suggestibility.

• Social impact: inaccurate child testimony can lead to wrongful convictions, harming innocent people and undermining public trust in the justice system.

children as eyewitnesses - EWT is reliable

• Davis et al. (1989): reviewed research on child witnesses.

• Found children aged 6–7 and 10–11 were fairly accurate in recalling events and did not typically fabricate details.

• Their memory for important details was not significantly influenced by adult suggestions.

• Challenges earlier claims that children are prone to fantasy or easily misled.

• Shows children can be reliable eyewitnesses, especially when questioned using age‑appropriate, non‑leading techniques.

• Children may even be less influenced by biases, recalling events more directly.

• Ethical impact: respecting children’s testimony ensures their voices are heard, supports fairness, and reinforces society’s duty to protect and empower young witnesses.

children as eyewitness mini conclusion

• It is difficult for psychologists to prove eyewitnesses are unreliable, so EWT should be supported by objective evidence.

• DNA, digital forensics, and CCTV can corroborate or challenge eyewitness accounts.

• Growing use of CCTV in the UK reduces problems caused by unreliable EWT, as footage can verify witness statements.

• Nottingham Trent University (2017): CCTV was useful in 65% of police investigations.

• Digital forensics is increasingly central to criminal justice — used in 90% of cases (House of Lords, 2019).

• Shows that modern investigative methods can strengthen accuracy, reduce wrongful convictions, and improve confidence in the justice system.

conclusion

• Psychologists cannot definitively prove eyewitnesses are unreliable, so EWT should be supported by objective evidence.

• DNA, digital forensics, and CCTV can corroborate or challenge eyewitness accounts.

• Growing use of CCTV in the UK reduces issues with unreliable EWT by verifying witness statements.

• Nottingham Trent University (2017): CCTV was useful in 65% of police investigations.

• Digital forensics is now central to criminal justice — used in 90% of cases (House of Lords, 2019).

• Shows modern investigative methods can strengthen accuracy, reduce wrongful convictions, and improve confidence in the justice system.