Skip to main content
EnglandPsychologySyllabus dot point

How reliable is eyewitness testimony, and should the justice system trust it?

Contemporary debate for the cognitive approach: the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Arguments that it is and is not reliable, with a judgement.

An Eduqas A-Level Psychology answer to the cognitive approach's contemporary debate, the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Covers the evidence that memory is reconstructive and distorted by leading questions and anxiety, the arguments that EWT can be accurate, and how to reach a judgement on the Past to Present paper.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.814 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The answer
  3. Examples in context
  4. Try this

What this dot point is asking

The reliability of eyewitness testimony (EWT) is the contemporary debate attached to the cognitive approach in Component 1 (it follows from the cognitive view of memory as reconstructive). You must outline the arguments that EWT is and is not reliable, and reach a judgement.

The answer

What the debate is about

Arguments that EWT is unreliable

  • Reconstructive memory. Memory is rebuilt using schemas (Bartlett), so gaps are filled and details distorted.
  • Leading questions. Loftus and Palmer showed the verb in a question (smashed versus hit) changed estimated speed and made witnesses "remember" broken glass that was not there.
  • Anxiety and weapon focus. High anxiety and focusing on a weapon can impair recall of other details.
  • Misinformation effect. Post-event information can contaminate the original memory.

Arguments that EWT can be reliable

  • Central, distinctive details. Witnesses are often accurate for the central, important features of an event.
  • Real-world accuracy. Field studies (for example Yuille and Cutshall's witnesses to a real shooting) found high, durable accuracy that resisted leading questions.
  • Good interviewing. The cognitive interview improves accuracy by maximising retrieval cues and avoiding leading questions.

Reaching a judgement

A balanced conclusion is that EWT can be reliable under good conditions (significant events, central details, careful non-leading interviewing) but is vulnerable to distortion, so it should be used with caution, corroborated by other evidence and supported by proper interview techniques rather than treated as infallible.

Examples in context

Example 1. Loftus and Palmer and leading questions. Changing one verb ("smashed" versus "hit") raised speed estimates and made some witnesses falsely recall broken glass, showing how question wording distorts memory. This is the strongest evidence on the unreliable side and explains why police avoid leading questions.

Example 2. Yuille and Cutshall's real shooting. Witnesses to a real shooting recalled the event accurately months later and resisted misleading questions, showing EWT can be reliable for significant, real events. This balances the lab findings and supports the conditional judgement.

Try this

Q1. State one reason eyewitness testimony may be unreliable. [2 marks]

  • Cue. Memory is reconstructive (Bartlett), so it can be distorted by leading questions (Loftus and Palmer), anxiety or post-event misinformation.

Q2. Explain one piece of evidence that EWT can be reliable. [3 marks]

  • Cue. Field studies such as Yuille and Cutshall found witnesses to a real shooting were highly accurate months later and resisted leading questions, unlike many lab studies.

Q3. State a balanced conclusion to the debate. [2 marks]

  • Cue. EWT can be reliable under good conditions (central details of significant events, non-leading interviewing) but is vulnerable to distortion, so it should be used cautiously and corroborated.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

Eduqas 201810 marksOutline arguments for and against the reliability of eyewitness testimony. [10 marks]
Show worked answer →

An item testing both sides of the debate (AO1/AO3).

Against reliability: memory is reconstructive (Bartlett's schemas), so it is open to distortion; leading questions can alter recall and create false memories (Loftus and Palmer showed the verb in a question changed estimated speed and whether witnesses "saw" broken glass); anxiety and the weapon-focus effect can impair accuracy; and post-event information and the misinformation effect contaminate memory.

For reliability: in some conditions witnesses are accurate, especially for central, distinctive details and where the event was significant; real-world studies (for example Yuille and Cutshall's shooting witnesses) found high accuracy that resisted leading questions; and accuracy improves with good interviewing (the cognitive interview).

Markers reward developed points on both sides, with named research, and a contrast.

Eduqas 202212 marksDiscuss the contemporary debate about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. [12 marks]
Show worked answer →

A discussion item (AO1 plus AO3) reaching a judgement.

A strong answer outlines the debate (EWT is central to justice but its reliability is contested), then develops both sides: reconstructive memory, leading questions and misinformation (Loftus and Palmer), and anxiety against accuracy for central details, real-world accuracy (Yuille and Cutshall), and the benefits of the cognitive interview.

It then reaches a judgement: EWT can be reliable under good conditions (significant events, central details, careful non-leading interviewing) but is vulnerable to distortion, so it should be used with caution and supported by corroborating evidence and proper interview techniques rather than treated as infallible.

Markers reward balanced development and a justified conclusion.

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this