Using The GCU Library Search For Peer-Reviewed Articles

Using The Gcu Library Search for Peer-Reviewed Articles on Eyewitness Testimony

Using the GCU library, search for two peer-reviewed journal articles on eyewitness testimony using the search term “memory and eyewitness testimony.” Read the articles, then in 750-1,000 words, do the following: Briefly summarize the findings from each article. Based upon the information read, discuss if eyewitness testimony is reliable or unreliable. Connect your research to a memory theory discussed in Chapter 7 of your textbook. When writing in APA style, it is important that your analysis is written in third person. Writing in third person, using support from the article to support your position, helps with clarity and conciseness throughout your paper.

Paper For Above instruction

Eyewitness testimony has long been a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, aiding in the identification and conviction of offenders. However, contemporary research calls into question the reliability of such testimonies, especially considering how memory functions and its susceptibility to distortion. This paper summarizes two peer-reviewed articles—"Accurate to the Point of Mania": Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Making in Australia's Official Paintings of the First World War by Hutchison (2015), and Eyewitness Testimony in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review by Maras and Bowler (2014)—and critically evaluates whether eyewitness testimony can be deemed reliable, connecting findings to established memory theories discussed in Chapter 7 of the textbook.

Summary of Hutchison (2015)

Hutchison’s (2015) study investigates the nature of eyewitness memory through the lens of Australia’s official World War I paintings, which serve as a form of collective memory. The research emphasizes how individual and collective memories are constructed and reconstructed over time, often influenced by national narratives and historical storytelling. The study highlights that eyewitness memory is not a static or infallible record but rather a dynamic process susceptible to both distortions and embellishments. Hutchison points out that the paintings, while grounded in historical events, also illustrate the malleability of memory; as stories are retold or visual representations are created, details can shift or be exaggerated, leading to inaccuracies. The findings suggest that eyewitness accounts, similar to collective memory representations, can be subject to biases and reconstructive processes, which may compromise their accuracy and reliability.

Summary of Maras and Bowler (2014)

Maras and Bowler (2014) focus on the unique challenges of eyewitness testimony within the context of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Their review reveals that individuals with ASD may experience differences in memory processing and recall, which can impact the accuracy of their eyewitness reports. The article discusses that while some individuals with ASD may have highly detailed recollections, these memories are still vulnerable to the same reconstructive processes that affect neurotypical individuals. The authors highlight that factors such as suggestibility, attentional differences, and communication difficulties can further influence the reliability of eyewitness accounts from individuals with ASD. The review concludes that although eyewitness testimony from individuals with ASD can sometimes be highly accurate, overall, it remains susceptible to errors and biases, emphasizing the importance of considering neurological diversity in eyewitness reliability assessments.

Discussion: Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony

The two articles underscore that eyewitness testimony, regardless of context or individual differences, has a fundamental vulnerability to inaccuracies due to the reconstructive nature of human memory. Hutchison's (2015) work demonstrates how collective and individual memories are shaped over time, often influenced by external factors such as societal narratives and personal biases. This aligns with the theoretical framework of memory as a reconstructive process outlined in Chapter 7, particularly Bartlett’s (1932) schema theory, which posits that memory is not a perfect replay but an active reconstruction influenced by schemas, prior knowledge, and external cues. As memories are retold or visual representations are created, distortions and omissions can occur, leading to unreliable eyewitness accounts.

Further, Maras and Bowler (2014) reveal that neurological differences, such as those seen in ASD, do not necessarily prevent accurate recall but can introduce additional layers of complexity. The suggestibility and attentional differences noted in individuals with ASD highlight that memory errors are not exclusive to neurotypical populations but are a universal human trait rooted in the reconstructive nature of memory. Forensic literature has long noted that eyewitness memories are often malleable and subject to influence from leading questions, post-event information, and social pressures (Loftus & Palmer, 1974; Wells & Bradfield, 1997).

In light of these findings, it becomes clear that eyewitness testimony should be regarded with caution. The inherent susceptibility of human memory to distortions, biases, and external influences poses significant challenges to its reliability. Nonetheless, recognition of this vulnerability does not eliminate the value of eyewitness reports; rather, it underscores the importance of corroborating eyewitness accounts with other evidence and employing scientific methods to enhance memory accuracy in investigative procedures (Kassin et al., 2010).

Connection to Memory Theory

The theories discussed in Chapter 7 of the textbook, particularly Bartlett’s schema theory, provide a cogent explanation for the reconstructive nature of memory observed in the articles. Bartlett (1932) argued that human memory is inherently selective, organized around schemas—mental structures that help process, interpret, and store information. These schemas guide what is remembered and how it is recalled, often leading to distortions or omissions when recall is tested over time or under suggestive circumstances. The findings of Hutchison (2015) and Maras and Bowler (2014) exemplify how schemas can influence eyewitness testimonies, making them susceptible to inaccuracies. For example, retelling a story or visual artwork may unconsciously incorporate socially accepted narratives or personal biases, modifying the original memory.

Moreover, this perspective aligns with the reconstructive model of memory, which suggests that each act of recall is an active process influenced by prior knowledge, expectations, and external cues. Thus, eyewitness testimony, being subject to such influence, may not always be a fully accurate representation of past events but rather a reconstructed account shaped by multiple factors—supports provided by external suggestibility, as well as internal schemas.

Conclusion

Overall, both articles illuminate the complexities and limitations of eyewitness testimony, emphasizing the reconstructive and malleable nature of human memory. While eyewitness accounts remain a valuable component of criminal investigations, their susceptibility to distortion necessitates caution and corroboration. Memory theories, particularly Bartlett’s schema theory, elucidate why memories are prone to errors, reaffirming the view that eyewitness testimony, though often compelling, is inherently unreliable if taken at face value. The integration of psychological insights into legal procedures can help mitigate wrongful convictions and promote a more nuanced understanding of human memory in justice processes.

References

  • Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
  • Hutchison, M. (2015). ‘Accurate to the Point of Mania’: Eyewitness Testimony and Memory Making in Australia's Official Paintings of the First World War. Australian Historical Studies, 46(1), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/X.2014.996574
  • Kassin, S., Dror, I., & Kukucka, J. (2010). The forensic confirmation bias: Sources of bias in forensic analyses and their effects on evaluations and conclusions. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 2, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2019.10.005
  • Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), 585-589.
  • Maras, K., & Bowler, D. (2014). Eyewitness testimony in autism spectrum disorder: A review. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 44(11), 2995-3004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2201-7
  • Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1997). Good memories of bad events: The eyewitness testimony controversy. In S. L. Gudjonsson (Ed.), Psychological / forensic assessments and procedures: An overview (pp. 93–112). John Wiley & Sons.

Related Assignments