Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 35–44 | Cite as

The Role of Familiarity with the Defendant, Type of Descriptor Discrepancy, and Eyewitness Age on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Eyewitness Testimony

  • Chelsea L. Sheahan
  • Joanna D. Pozzulo
  • Jennifer E. Reed
  • Emily Pica
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The current study examined the influence of eyewitness familiarity with the defendant (familiar vs. not familiar), type of descriptor discrepancy (none vs. permanent vs. non-permanent), and eyewitness age (10- vs. 20-year-old) on mock jurors’ decision making. Mock jurors (N = 422 undergraduate students) read a mock trial involving an alleged motor theft. Familiarity with the defendant resulted in more guilty verdicts and higher guilt ratings compared to when the relationship between the eyewitness and defendant was described as ‘strangers’. Mock jurors also were more likely to reach a guilty verdict, provide higher guilt ratings, and rate the eyewitness more favourably when no discrepancies were reported compared to when there were discrepancies. Moreover, the defendant was rated less favourably when discrepancies were present. Surprisingly, mock jurors were more likely to vote guilty, and rate the eyewitness more favourably and the defendant less favourably, when descriptor discrepancies were permanent features made compared to non-permanent feature discrepancies. No effects of eyewitness age were found.

Keywords

Familiarity Descriptor discrepancy Eyewitness age Mock juror decision making 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Boesveld, S. (2016). What I wish I’d known before testifying in the Ghomeshi trial. Chatelaine, Retrieved from http://www.chatelaine.com/news/what-i-wish-id-known-before-testifying-in-the-ghomeshi-trial/
  2. Bradfield AL, Wells GL (2000) The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: a test of the five Biggers criteria. Law Hum Behav 24:581–594. doi: 10.1023/A:1005523129437 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer N, Potter R, Fisher RP, Bond N, Luszcz MA (1999) Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Appl Cogn Psychol 13:297–313. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199908)13:4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer N, Wells GL (2011) Eyewitness identification. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:24–27. doi: 10.1177/0963721410389169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruce V, Henderson Z, Newman C, Burton AM (2001) Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. J Exp Psychol Appl 7:207–218. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.7.3.207 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruer K, Pozzulo JD (2014) Influence of eyewitness age and recall error on mock juror decision-making. Leg Criminol Psychol 19(2):332–348. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.l2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins. (2013) In Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/familiarity?showCookiePolicy=true
  8. Cutler, B.L, & Penrod, S.D. (1995). Mistaken identification: the eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge University Press, New York: NY.Google Scholar
  9. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Seying R, Pryce J (2001) Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol Public Policy Law:622–727. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
  10. Flowe HD, Mehta A, Ebbeson EB (2011) The role of eyewitness identification evidence in felony case dispositions. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:140–159. doi: 10.1037/a0021311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabora NJ, Spanos NP, Joab A (1993) The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law Hum Behav 17:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Golding JM, Wasarhaley NE, Lynch KR, Lippert A, Magyarics CL (2015) Improving the credibility of child sexual assault victims in court: the impact of a sexual assault nurse examiner. Behavioural Sciences and the Law 33:493–507. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2188 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodman GS, Golding JM, Helgeson VS, Haith MM, Michelli J (1987) When a child takes the stand: jurors’ perceptions of children’s eyewitness testimony. Law Hum Behav 11:27–40. doi: 10.1007/BF01044837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. The Innocence Project. (n.d.). Understand the causes. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
  15. Keller SR, Wiener RL (2011) What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29:376–394. doi: 10.1002/bsl.971 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lieberman JD (2002) Head over heart or heart over head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. J Appl Soc Psychol 32:2526–2553. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02755.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lindsay RCL, Lim R, Marando L, Cully D (1986) Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: a test of metamemory hypotheses. J Appl Soc Psychol 16:447–459. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01151.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nuñez N, McCrea SM, Culhane SE (2011) Jury decision making research: are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29:439–451. doi: 10.1002/bsl.967 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Neill MC, Pozzulo JD (2012) Jurors’ judgments across multiple identifications and descriptor inconsistencies. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 30:39–66Google Scholar
  20. Pennington N, Hastie R (1986) Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:242–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pennington N, Hastie R (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Cognition 62:189–206. doi: 10.1037/0022-2514.62.2.189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pezdek K, Stolzenberg S (2014) Are individuals’ familiarity judgments diagnostic of prior contact? Psychol Crime Law 20:302–314. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2013.772181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pozzulo JD, Dempsey JL (2009) Witness factors and their influence on jurors’ perceptions and verdicts. Crim Justice Behav 36:923–934. doi: 10.1177/0093854809338450
  24. Pozzulo JD, Dempsey JL, O’Neill M, Grech D (2009) The relationship between recalling a person and recognizing that person. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 27:19–35Google Scholar
  25. Pozzulo JD, Pettalia JL, Bruer K, Javaid S (2014) Eyewitness age and familiarity with the defendant: influential factors in mock jurors’ assessments of defendant guilt? American Journal of Forensic Psychology 32:39–51Google Scholar
  26. Pozzulo JD, Warren KL (2003) Descriptions and identifications of strangers by youth and adult witnesses. J Appl Psychol 88:315–323. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.315 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. R. V. Ghomeshi, Ontario Court of Justice (2016). Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj155/2016oncj155.html
  28. Ross DF, Dunning D, Toglia MP, Ceci SJ (1990) The child in the eyes of the jury: assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of the child witness. Law Hum Behav 14:5–23. doi: 10.1007/BF01055786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon L (1996) Legal treatment of the victim-offender relationship in crimes of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 11:94–106. doi: 10.1177/088626096011001007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Sinha V, Black T, Fast E, Felstiner C, Holroyd J. (2010). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect—2008: executive summary & chapters 1–5. Ottawa, Canada: Public Health Agency of Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Wiener RL, Krauss DA, Lieberman JD (2011) Mock jury research: where do we go from here? Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29:467–479. doi: 10.1002/bsl.989 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright DB, Hanoteau F, Parkinson C, Tatham A (2010) Perceptions about memory reliability and honesty for children of 3 to 18 years old. Leg Criminol Psychol 15:195–207. doi: 10.1348/135532508X400347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chelsea L. Sheahan
    • 1
  • Joanna D. Pozzulo
    • 1
  • Jennifer E. Reed
    • 1
  • Emily Pica
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations