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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
No descriptor discrepancy was used as the reference group.
References
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/
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
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
Brewer N, Wells GL (2011) Eyewitness identification. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:24–27. doi:10.1177/0963721410389169
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
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
Collins. (2013) In Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/familiarity?showCookiePolicy=true
Cutler, B.L, & Penrod, S.D. (1995). Mistaken identification: the eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge University Press, New York: NY.
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
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
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 17:103–119
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
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
The Innocence Project. (n.d.). Understand the causes. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
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
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
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
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
O’Neill MC, Pozzulo JD (2012) Jurors’ judgments across multiple identifications and descriptor inconsistencies. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 30:39–66
Pennington N, Hastie R (1986) Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:242–258
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
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
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
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 27:19–35
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 32:39–51
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
R. V. Ghomeshi, Ontario Court of Justice (2016). Retrieved from http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2016/2016oncj155/2016oncj155.html
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
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
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.
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sheahan, C.L., Pozzulo, J.D., Reed, J.E. et al. The Role of Familiarity with the Defendant, Type of Descriptor Discrepancy, and Eyewitness Age on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Eyewitness Testimony. J Police Crim Psych 33, 35–44 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9232-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9232-2