yuillie and cutshall (1986) reconstructive / fashbulb

Introduction

Memory is a cognitive process that allows individuals to encode, store, and retrieve information. One key debate in cognitive psychology is the reliability of memory, particularly in eyewitness testimony. Loftus & Palmer (1974) demonstrated that memory is reconstructive and can be influenced by leading questions, suggesting that it is unreliable. However, Yuille & Cutshall (1986) challenged this by showing that memory can be highly accurate in real-life situations. This essay will evaluate the reliability of memory with reference to Yuille & Cutshall (1986), considering supporting and contradicting evidence.

Main Body

Theory: Reconstructive Memory and Flashbulb Memory

Reconstructive memory theory suggests that memory is not a perfect recording but is influenced by schemas, leading to distortions. Flashbulb memory theory, however, suggests that highly emotional and significant events are remembered vividly and accurately due to strong emotional arousal.

Evidence: Yuille & Cutshall (1986)

• Aim: To investigate whether leading questions affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in a real-life crime.

• Method: A field experiment using 13 eyewitnesses from a real shooting in Vancouver. They were interviewed four months after the incident and asked misleading questions about a broken headlight and a yellow panel (both of which did not exist). Their responses were compared to their original police statements.

• Findings: Eyewitnesses provided highly accurate accounts (79–84% accuracy) and were not misled by the questions. The stress experienced during the event did not impair their memory but may have contributed to its accuracy.

• Conclusion: Unlike Loftus & Palmer’s (1974) study, memory remained reliable, suggesting that emotional arousal may enhance rather than distort recall.

Application

This study supports the idea that memory reliability depends on the context. In real-life, emotionally charged events, memory appears to be more resistant to distortion, potentially due to flashbulb memory. This has implications for legal settings, as it suggests that eyewitness testimony can be reliable under certain conditions.

Criticism

• Methodological Issues: The study had a small sample (only 13 participants), reducing generalizability.

• Lack of Control: Differences in how much participants rehearsed or discussed the event could have influenced memory accuracy.

• Flashbulb Memory: The high emotional intensity may have led to better recall, meaning the study does not fully contradict reconstructive memory theory but rather highlights exceptions.

• Ethical Concerns: Participants had to recall a traumatic event, which may have caused distress.

Unanswered Questions

• Does memory remain accurate for all types of emotional events, or only those with direct personal involvement?

• Would different results be found if the study was replicated in a different cultural or legal context?

Practical Use

Findings from this study have implications for the legal system, particularly in assessing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Courts may need to consider factors like stress and emotional impact when evaluating witness credibility.

Counterargument: Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Loftus & Palmer’s (1974) study demonstrated that memory is malleable and susceptible to misinformation. Participants who were asked leading questions about a car crash (“smashed” vs. “hit”) recalled seeing broken glass when there was none, supporting reconstructive memory theory. This challenges Yuille & Cutshall’s findings by suggesting that memory can be easily altered, particularly in controlled settings with less emotional involvement.

Conclusion

While Yuille & Cutshall (1986) suggest that memory can be reliable in real-life, emotionally intense situations, Loftus & Palmer (1974) show that memory is reconstructive and prone to distortion in controlled settings. This indicates that memory reliability is context-dependent. In legal contexts, eyewitness testimony should be carefully evaluated based on the level of emotional involvement and potential for misinformation.