Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 351–361 | Cite as

The Influence of Familiar and Confident Eyewitnesses on Mock Jurors’ Judgments

  • Emily PicaEmail author
  • Chelsea L. Sheahan
  • Joanna Pozzulo
  • Jonathan Vallano
  • Jennifer Pettalia


We examined whether eyewitness confidence, familiarity with the defendant (defined as number of prior exposures), and eyewitness age (Study 1 only) influenced mock jurors in a murder trial. Participants read a criminal mock trial transcript where the eyewitness reported seeing the defendant once or many times (vs. none) and answered questions relating to the defendant’s guilt, culpability, and the accuracy of the eyewitness’ identification. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 542 and N = 169, respectively) only confidence influenced jurors’ judgments with more guilt judgments and higher likelihood of identification accuracy when the witness espoused high (vs. low) confidence. Study 3 (N = 179) utilized a stronger operationalization of familiarity by explicitly stating the number of times the eyewitness had seen the defendant prior to the crime (e.g., 0, 10, or 20 times). Mock jurors were more likely to believe that the defendant was guilty when the eyewitness had seen him 10 times prior to the crime compared to zero times. Additionally, there was a trend for more favorable perceptions of the eyewitness as familiarity with the defendant increased. These results suggest that in some cases, familiarity between an eyewitness and defendant can impact mock juror decision-making.


Eyewitness identification Familiarity Juror decision-making Eyewitness age Eyewitness confidence 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Bornstein BH, Deffenbacher KA, Penrod SD, McGorty EK (2012) Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: a meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychol Crime Law 18:473–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bornstein BH, Golding JM, Neuschatz J, Kimbrough C, Reed K, Magyarics C, Luecht K (2017) Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 41(1):13–28. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer N, Burke A (2002) Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law Hum Behav 26(3):353–364. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bruer K, Pozzulo JD (2014) Influence of eyewitness age and recall error on mock juror decision-making. Leg Criminol Psychol 19(2):332–348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain WJ, Baker--Ward L, Eaton KL (2005) A face in the crowd: the influences of familiarity and delay on preschoolers’ recognition. Psychol Crime Law 11:315–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutler B, Penrod S, Stuve T (1988) Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law Hum Behav 12:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devenport J, Penrod S, Cutler B (1997) Eyewitness identification evidence: evaluation commonsense evaluations. Psychol Public Policy Law 3:338–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flowe HD, Mehta A, Ebbeson EB (2011) The role of eyewitness identification evidence in felony case dispositions. Psychol Public Policy Law 17:140–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gross J, Hayne H (1996) Eyewitness identification by 5- to 6-year-old children. Law Hum Behav 20:359–373. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keller SR, Wiener RL (2011) What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 29:376–394. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Leippe MR, Romanczyk A, Manion AP (1991) Eyewitness memory for a touching experience: accuracy differences between child and adult witnesses. J Appl Psychol 76:367–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mandler G (2008) Familiarity breeds attempts: a critical review of dual-process theories of recognition. Perspect Psychol Sci 3:390–399. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Memon A, Hope L, Bull R (2003) Exposure duration: effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Br J Psychol 94:339–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moreland RL, Beach SR (1992) Exposure effects in the classroom: the development of affinity among students. J Exp Soc Psychol 28:244–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moreland RL, Zajonc RB (1982) Exposure effects in person perception: familiarity, similarity, and attraction. J Exp Soc Psychol 18(5):395–415. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Pica E, Sheahan C, Mesesan A & Pozzulo J (2017) The influence of prior familiarity, identification delay, appearance change, and descriptor type on mock jurors’ judgments. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. Advance Online Publication. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pozzulo JD, Lemieux JMT, Wells E, McCuaig HJ (2006) The influence of eyewitness identification decisions and age of witness on jurors’ verdicts and perceptions of reliability. Psychol Crime Law 12(6):641–652. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sauer JD, Brewer N (2015) Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness identification. In: Valentine T, Davis JP (eds) Wiley series in the psychology of crime, policing and law. Forensic facial identification: theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites and CCTV. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 185–208Google Scholar
  25. Sheahan CL & Pozzulo JD (under review) “I know that guy!”: familiarity, lineup procedure, and the adolescent witness. Manuscript submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheahan C, Pozzulo J, Reed J, Pica E (2018) The role of familiarity with the defendant, type of descriptor discrepancy, and eyewitness age on mock jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 33:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sporer S, Penrod S, Read D, Cutler B (1995) Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychol Bull 118:315–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The National Registry of Exonerations (2018) Joseph Lamont Abbitt. Retrieved from:
  29. U.S. Department of Health and Human Sevices (2015) Child maltreatment. Retrieved on December 5, 2018 from
  30. Vallano J, Pettalia J, Pica E & Pozzulo J (2018) An examination of mock jurors’ judgments in familiar identification cases. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. Advance Online Publication. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wells G, Olson E (2003) Eyewitness testimony. Annu Rev Psychol 54:277–295. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wixted JT, Wells GL (2017) The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: a new synthesis. Psychol Sci Public Interest 18:10–65. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wright DB (2007) The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Memory 15:746–754. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Zajonc RB (1968) Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J Pers Soc Psychol 9:1–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Pica
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chelsea L. Sheahan
    • 2
  • Joanna Pozzulo
    • 2
  • Jonathan Vallano
    • 3
  • Jennifer Pettalia
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychological Science and CounselingAustin Peay State UniversityClarksvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyThe University of Pittsburgh at GreensburgGreensburgUSA

Personalised recommendations