Evaluation of Research Into Eyewitness Testimony

Evaluation of Research Into Eyewitness Testimony

Eyewitness testimony investigates the accuracy of memory following a

crime or an incident worth interrogating and the types of errors made

in such situations. Sometimes eyewitness testimony can be unreliable,

which can lead to horrific consequences in a court of law for example,

hence many Psychologists have studied and theorized why this happens.

One leading researcher on Eyewitness testimony is Elizabeth Loftus and

her colleagues, in 1975, participants were shown an event by film of a

car crash, the participants were split into 2 groups and ask questions

on what they had just seen, Group 1 were asked questions that were

consistent with the incident, while Group 2, were given same question

except one, which was misleading (involving a barn). A week later

participants were ask another ten questions, and the last question ask

did they see a barn (which was not in the incident). Only 2.7 % gave

the incorrect answer and in-group 2 17.3% gave the incorrect answer.

Loftus concluded that the introduction of the barn in the first

misleading question was now recalled as part of the original event.

Elizabeth performed a further study (1978) on eyewitness testimony and

found the same thingy, also that the effect of the misleading question

became more prominent over time.

Evan though the misleading question introduces new information which

in added to the event, not every one actually incorporated it, only

17.3% did, the other 82.7% were unaffected. However, without this

research we would not know that memory can be altered by misleading

information. Loftus can be criticized on her method of t...

... middle of paper ...

...recall was still

superior. Hence Christian and Hubinette concluded that people remember

events more accurately in real time and when they are actually

involved. A criticism of this is that Christian and Hubinette should

have subjected the same people to the tests similar to Loftus, so they

could compare how well people would recall fake mock events to real

life events. However I believe there study to be good as it shows that

recalling a real life event is more accurate then a mock events, so

eyewitness testimony can be reliable.

In general Loftus's research is very useful, as it shows us eyewitness

testimony can not be completely dependable, however in light of the

her studies limitations and other studies results (Christian and

Hubinette), Eyewitness testimonies are still a very good way of

establishing events.