This paper will discuss recent psychological views pertaining to the use of eyewitness testimonies in court trials. Studies in the past have shown that "eyewitness testimony is particularly persuasive for juries, even though eyewitnesses may be inaccurate reporters of events" (Scrivner & Safer, 1988, p. 371). This conflict between eyewitness credibility and eyewitness accuracy has led to a controversy over whether or not such testimonies should be allowed in court. From this perspective, recent studies have sought to show the extent to which eyewitness reports may be considered accurate, as well as the conditions under which accuracy may be improved.
For example, Scrivner and Safer (1988) conducted a study in which a group of subjects were shown a videotape of a violent crime and then tested on their ability to recall details about the crime. The researchers noted that memory is often negatively impacted by violent, shocking, or traumatic occurrences (Scrivner & Safer, 1988, p. 371). Nevertheless, the researchers also found that the subjects' memories of the violent event tended to improve with each subsequent recall attempt (Scrivner & Safer, 1988, p. 376). In fact, Scrivner and Safer found that subsequent attempts often led to a state of "hypermnesia," in which the subjects exhibited an unusual ability to vividly remember specific details about the crime. This study also demonstrated that the use of emotional cues or context cues had little or no effect on the ability of the subjects to remember details of the crime they had witnessed. Thus, the use of such cues was of little value in stimulating accurate recall, whereas repeated attempts to recall over the course of time proved to be highly useful (Scriver & Safer, 1988, p. 376).
Police departments have long used the technique of picture identification as a means for stimulating eyewitness recall. A recent study by Paley and Geiselman (1989) considered the extent to...