If I were to do my research again I think I would look deeper into the cultural influences and considerations that determine whether an abused child would be classified as a reliable eyewitness. I think this would be extremely interesting to look into as different cultures may classify and view abuse differently. While a more in-depth analysis of this factor may have provided additional perspectives and insight, I don’t think it would have impacted my conclusion. I believe an area of research that significantly strengthened my argument, was my research into the biological explanation, I believe with that I was able to provide clear empirical evidence that supported my claim, that was hard to refute. While researching many questions emerged that I wasn’t expecting for example; is it the abuse itself that causes a child’s deficits or is the situation and factors surrounding the abuse that plays the most crucial influence? This question was hard to address as many papers argues for different ideas, however, when looking at the research holistically it is clear to see that because of the complexity of a child’s cognition it would be far too reductionistic to solely blame one factor.
