The Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony Across the Lifespan
A Review with Implications for the Indian Legal System
Abstract
Eyewitness accounts of crimes are a mainstay of the criminal justice system worldwide. Courts of law usually regard the accounts of eyewitnesses to be among the most credible forms of evidence presented in a court of law. However, psychological research over several decades has revealed that eyewitness testimonies are among the most fragile forms of evidence. The vulnerability of eyewitness testimony is rooted in memory theories such as Bartlett’s theory of reconstructive memory, Information Processing Theory, and the Source Monitoring Framework. The vulnerability of eyewitness testimony has been demonstrated through the study of various characteristics of the perpetrators of the crimes, such as the effect of the race of the perpetrator upon the eyewitness’s ability to recognise him or her, and the effect of the presence of a weapon upon the eyewitness’s ability to focus upon the perpetrator. Other factors that have been shown to affect the credibility of eyewitness accounts include forgetting and retaining information over time, the emotions felt as a result of the witnessed crime, and the misinformation effect. Furthermore, the credibility of eyewitness accounts also differs according to the age of the eyewitnesses. Finally, cases such as Ronald Cotton demonstrate the consequences of these vulnerabilities. Despite the amount of research on eyewitness testimony in the Western world, research on these topics in India remains limited, even though eyewitness testimony carries significant weight in Indian courts of law. Therefore, a review of psychological research on eyewitness testimony can help reveal the need for eyewitness protocols in India’s courts of law, as well as indicate areas for future research.
References
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 403–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.403
Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children’s testimony. American Psychological Association.
Chance, J. E., & Goldstein, A. G. (1984). Face-recognition memory: Implications for children’s eyewitness testimony. Journal of Social Issues, 40(2), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01094.x
Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D. (1989). Age differences in source forgetting: Effects on reality monitoring and on eyewitness testimony. Psychology and Aging, 4(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.4.1.10
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-004-0025-3
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis [Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology]. Duncker & Humblot.
Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1228–1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000013
Innocence Project. (n.d.). Eyewitness misidentification. https://innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-misidentification/
iPleaders. (2022). Eyewitness testimony in India: Reliability and reform. https://blog.ipleaders.in/eyewitness-testimony-india/
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3
Legal Service India. (2022). Eyewitness testimony: Legal issues and reforms. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9060-eyewitness-testimony-legal-issues.html
Lindsay, D. S., Johnson, M. K., & Kwon, P. (1991). Developmental changes in memory source monitoring. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 52(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(91)90065-Z
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044839
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
Martschuk, N., & Sporer, S. L. (2019). Confidence of older eyewitnesses: Is it diagnostic of identification accuracy? Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1508784
McGeoch, J. A. (1932). Forgetting and the law of disuse. Psychological Review, 39(4), 352–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069819
Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 549–570. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025739514042
Roediger, H. L., & Geraci, L. (2007). Aging and the misinformation effect: A neuropsychological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.321
Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074. https://doi.org/10.1068/p281059
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. St. Martin’s Press.
Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546–1557. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546
Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.920180503
Authors retain copyright of their published work and grant the International Journal of Social Science Research and Review (IJSSRR) the right of first publication.
Articles published in IJSSRR are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
Authors are permitted to share, archive, and distribute the published version of their work, provided that proper acknowledgement of the original publication in IJSSRR is given.
