Jean Piaget's model of cognitive development argues that much of what we see and understand about the world derives from the way in which the child's brain develops. His model, many of the aspects of which has proven to be extremely helpful in understanding how human cognition develops as well as how it works across the lifespan, has implications for the ways in which eyewitnesses process information about what they have seen. However, while his work on early childhood cognitive development remains the gold standard in that arena, the ways in which his theories are extrapolated to adult eyewitnesses is problematic, as this paper explores.
Central to Piaget's argument is the idea that all children who are at the same point of cognitive development are more or less the same in terms of how they see the world: Any child who has mastered the skill of seriation - i.e. the ability to place objects in a logical order and to "keep" them there mentally - is more similar to any other child who has achieved this cognitive task than to child who have not yet attained this cognitive level. An extension of this argument - which certainly does extend Piaget's original claims but still seems to be a fair and accurate description of his model -- is that at least within the realm of cognition we all think the same as everyone else so long as we are at the same cognitive level, which nearly all adults are.
The chief problem with this argument is that it ignores the effects of culture and experience. The reason that all toddlers think very much like each other is that their cognitive skills are based in large measure on the physical development of their brains (aided by reasonable nutrition and a non-abusive environment). But adults are as influenced by culture as they are by basic cognition, and this fact affects their ability to be accurate eyewitnesses. While we might assume that all two-year-olds might see and process information about an event ...