Confident eyewitness testimony is typically seen as an unreliable form of evidence, especially considering issues such as mis incarcerations. In a recent study, Brewin et al. (2019) discovered that eighty-two percent of college undergraduates agreed that “an eyewitness’s confidence is never a good predictor of his or her identification accuracy.”
However, as Spearing and Wade write: “recent studies suggest that highly confident eyewitnesses are likely to provide highly accurate identification evidence, at least in some conditions” (Spearing, Wade 2021). One of these conditions is when testimony is untainted. The basic idea is that testing memory for its evidentiary content changes memory, and so taints or contaminates it. It is untainted eyewitness testimony that should be tested for its evidentiary content, not tainted evidence. This in many ways fits our common sense understanding about evidence (such as DNA evidence for instance). As such, the question arises: is the court system flawed partially because it relies too heavily on confident eyewitness testimony, or does confident eyewitness testimony produce flawed results because of its use in an already flawed court system? One study has concluded that, under good circumstances, eyewitness information turns out to be veridical over 90% of the time (Wixted et al., 2015).
The lecture notes identify some problems with the court system already when it comes to measuring how accurate eyewitness testimony is on the whole. For example, the notes speak of a “misinformation effect,” whereby the reliability of eyewitness testimony is reduced due to the witness being showed “leading information.” The textbook also notes that closed and leading questions reduce the accuracy of eyewitness reports (p. 301).
In short, eyewitness testimony is one of the most common forms of evidence used in court, and many think it is unreliable due to, for example, mis-incarcerations. Recent psychological research however indicates that eyewitness testimony, when confidently presented, is typically accurate when it is not tainted by something else. This shows that eyewitness testimony used in a flawed court system often reduces the reliability of that eyewitness testimony, rather than eyewitness testimony reducing the efficacy or reliability of the justice system (Wixted J.T., Mickes L. 2022). People have the issue flipped in my opinion. Further, recent research also shows that there are contexts where eyewitness testimony is good evidence, such as untainted confident eyewitness testimony.
This is all not to deny the pitfalls of eyewitness testimony, especially in highly stressful and quick circumstances, which can lead to unfortunate events like mis-incarcerations. But when we narrow the scope and weigh eyewitness testimony case by case, I think we see good grounds for thinking that there are contexts when eyewitness reliability can be trusted, all things being equal.
Sources:
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., Clark, S. E., Gronlund, S. D., & Roediger, H. L. III. (2015). Initial eyewitness confidence reliably predicts eyewitness identification accuracy. American Psychologist, 70(6), 515–526.
Spearing, E., Wade, K. (2021). Providing eyewitness confidence judgements during versus after eyewitness interviews does not affect the confidence-accuracy relationship. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition.
Brewin, C. R., Li, H., Ntarantana, V., Unsworth, C., & McNeilis, J. (2019). Is the public understanding of memory prone to widespread “myths”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12).
Wixted J.T., Mickes L. (2022). Eyewitness memory is reliable, but the criminal justice system is not. Memory 30(1)
You raise several compelling points about the complexities of eyewitness testimony in the legal system. The distinction between tainted and untainted testimony, as highlighted by Spearing and Wade, is particularly significant. It suggests that the reliability of eyewitness accounts hinges not only on the inherent memory of the witness but also heavily on how that memory is elicited and subsequently handled within the judicial process.
The research you mentioned by Wixted and colleagues reinforces the idea that, under optimal conditions, confident eyewitness testimony can indeed be a reliable source of evidence. This underscores the importance of the conditions under which such testimony is obtained and presented, aligning with the notion that memory contamination—through leading questions or exposure to misinformation—can significantly distort recall.
However, it’s crucial to consider the broader systemic issues that might exacerbate these problems. The court system’s reliance on eyewitness testimony, confident or not, often overlooks the psychological underpinnings of memory recall and suggestibility. This systemic flaw might not only lead to the misapplication of eyewitness testimony but could also contribute to the perpetuation of these issues by not sufficiently adapting to psychological insights.
Thus, while eyewitness testimony can indeed be reliable under specific, controlled conditions, the real challenge lies in ensuring that these conditions are consistently met in the courtroom. This would involve training for legal professionals in the cognitive psychology of memory and a more rigorous standard for the admissibility of eyewitness evidence, especially in cases where the stakes are extraordinarily high. It seems that improving the system’s approach to handling such testimony could mitigate many of the issues currently attributed to the unreliability of eyewitness accounts.
Eyewitness testimony can be a scary thing to rely on. I can see how it would be untrustworthy in a court decision when a loved one is at stake. As you mention, the leading questions could steer that eyewitness into believing something else they saw, when in reality, they never saw what they are being asked about. Eyewitnesses are also in the high stress situations and the adrenaline may skew what actually happened or they could have forgot altogether. I do, however, see the benefits to eyewitness testimonies. They were at the said situation and can provide at least some details on what transpired. They should not have all the ability to make drastic decisions, but they do indeed have a factor to play in their roles.
Wixted J.T., Mickes L. (2022). Eyewitness memory is reliable, but the criminal justice system is not. Memory 30(1)