Discuss the view that eyewit-
ness is reliable (24 marks)
Eyewitnesses are used within a court in order to offer evidence to crimes in case there are no
CCTV evidence available. Depending on stress levels and distance in time after the account can
make the accuracy differ.
Firstly, the reliancy of eyewitness accounts can change depending on Post event information.
In Loftus and Zani’s (1975) study asked participants whether they saw a broken headlight or
the broken headlight. It was reported that 7% of participants were asked “did you see a bro-
ken headlight” said yes and 17% of those asked, “did you see the broken headlight?” re-
sponded yes. This shows information post-event (using the or a) can influence our recollection
of an incident and reduce the accuracy of the eye-witness testimony. With this, it proves that
eyewitnesses are unreliable as their memory can be altered entirely with leading questions.
However, Loftus (1979) attempted to disprove this theory with another study. So, she showed
participants images of a man stealing a red purse from a woman’s bag. The participants were
then given misleading information that is designed to make them believe that the purse was
brown. The participants did not respond incorrectly to the identification of the purse with 98%
of them recalling that the purse was red. The evidence from this study proves that distinct de-
tails from an event can be easily used to identify something for post event information. This
shows that whilst eyewitnesses can be influenced by leading questions which can alter our
memory of something, colours and small details can allow us to make a correct account.
Additionally, crimes can be emotional experiences, impacting the reliancy on what we have
seen as something can be so traumatic, that it is repressed into the unconscious. According to
Freud’s psychodynamic theory of the Ego Defence Mechanisms, due to crimes being highly un-
expected and highly emotive experiences to be able to watch as a witness to it, it can lead to
the event being distressing. These distressing or painful memories that are formulated due to
the event are repressed into our unconscious so witnesses to a crime may not be able to accu-
rately recall all the information due to some being easily accessed/ This means that eyewit-
nesses purposely repressing any recollection of the event to avoid any distress to ourselves
when recalling the memory and therefore being unable to provide information. On the other
hand, we can also experience Flashbulb memories. Many psychologists believe that when we
have experienced that are highly emotive, surprising or distressing, we create vivid and long-
lasting memories of these events. Well, these are classified as Flashbulb Memories as it is like
we have taken a photo of the event. This means that we can easily recall the event and then
be reliable eyewitnesses when we have to give witness statements. With this, it means that
the number of people who are wrongly accused of a crime can be saved. So, in some circum-
stances the accounts are accurate of eyewitnesses as they had Flashbulb Memories but they
can also be repressed, making the account inaccurate due to the Ego Defence Mechanisms.
Furthermore, children can impact the reliability of an eyewitness’ testimony. Children are less
likely to lie than adults but that does not mean they can not make inaccuracies in their testi-
monies. In 1998, Pozzulo and Lindsay conducted a meta-analysis that included over 2,000 par-
ticipants. They found that children under 5 years old are less likely to make a correct identifica-
tion when the target is present in the line-up, perhaps due to their brain still attempting to
fully able to read and comprehend how the world works. They also found that children be-
tween the ages of 5-13 years did not differ much when compared to the adults in the target
‘present’ condition but the children were more likely to to make a choice when the target was
absent. This is an issue as children will not be able to properly help prosecute the correct per-
son eating further costs of crime (£124 billion per year is estimated) with re-trials adding fur-
ther expenses to the UK economy. If the child does not pick the right criminal, then the perpe-
trator will able to roam free, causing further disruption to everyday society. So, perhaps using
children as they are less reliable than adults in a criminal line-up. On the contrary, children
may be useful eyewitnesses due to Davies et al’s (1989) study involving children. They con-
ness is reliable (24 marks)
Eyewitnesses are used within a court in order to offer evidence to crimes in case there are no
CCTV evidence available. Depending on stress levels and distance in time after the account can
make the accuracy differ.
Firstly, the reliancy of eyewitness accounts can change depending on Post event information.
In Loftus and Zani’s (1975) study asked participants whether they saw a broken headlight or
the broken headlight. It was reported that 7% of participants were asked “did you see a bro-
ken headlight” said yes and 17% of those asked, “did you see the broken headlight?” re-
sponded yes. This shows information post-event (using the or a) can influence our recollection
of an incident and reduce the accuracy of the eye-witness testimony. With this, it proves that
eyewitnesses are unreliable as their memory can be altered entirely with leading questions.
However, Loftus (1979) attempted to disprove this theory with another study. So, she showed
participants images of a man stealing a red purse from a woman’s bag. The participants were
then given misleading information that is designed to make them believe that the purse was
brown. The participants did not respond incorrectly to the identification of the purse with 98%
of them recalling that the purse was red. The evidence from this study proves that distinct de-
tails from an event can be easily used to identify something for post event information. This
shows that whilst eyewitnesses can be influenced by leading questions which can alter our
memory of something, colours and small details can allow us to make a correct account.
Additionally, crimes can be emotional experiences, impacting the reliancy on what we have
seen as something can be so traumatic, that it is repressed into the unconscious. According to
Freud’s psychodynamic theory of the Ego Defence Mechanisms, due to crimes being highly un-
expected and highly emotive experiences to be able to watch as a witness to it, it can lead to
the event being distressing. These distressing or painful memories that are formulated due to
the event are repressed into our unconscious so witnesses to a crime may not be able to accu-
rately recall all the information due to some being easily accessed/ This means that eyewit-
nesses purposely repressing any recollection of the event to avoid any distress to ourselves
when recalling the memory and therefore being unable to provide information. On the other
hand, we can also experience Flashbulb memories. Many psychologists believe that when we
have experienced that are highly emotive, surprising or distressing, we create vivid and long-
lasting memories of these events. Well, these are classified as Flashbulb Memories as it is like
we have taken a photo of the event. This means that we can easily recall the event and then
be reliable eyewitnesses when we have to give witness statements. With this, it means that
the number of people who are wrongly accused of a crime can be saved. So, in some circum-
stances the accounts are accurate of eyewitnesses as they had Flashbulb Memories but they
can also be repressed, making the account inaccurate due to the Ego Defence Mechanisms.
Furthermore, children can impact the reliability of an eyewitness’ testimony. Children are less
likely to lie than adults but that does not mean they can not make inaccuracies in their testi-
monies. In 1998, Pozzulo and Lindsay conducted a meta-analysis that included over 2,000 par-
ticipants. They found that children under 5 years old are less likely to make a correct identifica-
tion when the target is present in the line-up, perhaps due to their brain still attempting to
fully able to read and comprehend how the world works. They also found that children be-
tween the ages of 5-13 years did not differ much when compared to the adults in the target
‘present’ condition but the children were more likely to to make a choice when the target was
absent. This is an issue as children will not be able to properly help prosecute the correct per-
son eating further costs of crime (£124 billion per year is estimated) with re-trials adding fur-
ther expenses to the UK economy. If the child does not pick the right criminal, then the perpe-
trator will able to roam free, causing further disruption to everyday society. So, perhaps using
children as they are less reliable than adults in a criminal line-up. On the contrary, children
may be useful eyewitnesses due to Davies et al’s (1989) study involving children. They con-
