Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 185–191 | Cite as

Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence

  • Brian L. Cutler
  • Steven D. Penrod
  • Hedy Red Dexter
Research Note

Abstract

A mock-jury study was conducted to examine juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Subjects were 129 eligible and experienced jurors from Dane County, Wisconsin, who viewed a videotaped trial that involved an eyewitness identification. Ten factors associated with the crime and the identification (e.g., disguise of the perpetrator, retention interval, confidence of the witness) were manipulated. The results of this mock-jury study were combined with those of a previous study using the same experimental stimuli and procedures, but using undergraduates as subjects. This analysis showed that the confidence of the eyewitness was the most powerful predictor of verdicts (p<.05) and that differences between undergraduates and eligible jurors in their sensitivity to eyewitness evidence were negligible.

Keywords

Social Psychology Powerful Predictor Retention Interval Experimental Stimulus Eyewitness Identification 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revised.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695.Google Scholar
  2. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.Google Scholar
  3. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identifications: The role of system and estimator variables.Law and Human Behavior, 11, 223–258.Google Scholar
  4. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decisionmaking in eyewitness identification cases.Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55.Google Scholar
  5. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228.Google Scholar
  6. Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). External validity of research in legal psychology.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 39–70.Google Scholar
  7. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447–459.Google Scholar
  8. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations?Journal of Applied Psychology, 66 79–89.Google Scholar
  9. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81–102). Chichester, Great Britain: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Sears, D. O. (1896). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515–530.Google Scholar
  11. Walters, C. M. (1985). Admission of expert testimony on eyewitness identification.California Law Review, 73, 1402–1430.Google Scholar
  12. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics.Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71–93.Google Scholar
  13. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688–696.Google Scholar
  14. Wells, G. L., & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682–687.Google Scholar
  15. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–444.Google Scholar
  16. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275–285.Google Scholar
  17. Whitley, B. E. Jr., & Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387–409.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian L. Cutler
    • 1
  • Steven D. Penrod
    • 2
  • Hedy Red Dexter
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida International UniversityNorth Miami
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations