Abstract
A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations. The film was shown on a television newscast and to small audiences under more controlled conditions. A few moments after the crime, witnesses were shown a lineup and asked to identify the culprit. Of the television respondents, 74% attempted an identification; only 19% were correct (n.s.). The film audience witnesses were only slightly better (24.8%) than chance (p <.05). Analyses of recalled descriptions showed that most witnesses had seen and recalled very little of the culprit’s features, but they were motivated by the demand of the lineup situation to try to identify anyway.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Notes
Fanselow, M., & Buckhout, R. Effects of non-verbal biasing in testing eyewitnesses on a photospread test (Monograph CR-26). Brooklyn: Brooklyn College, Center for Responsive Psychology, 1980.
Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Unpublished manuscript, 1979.
Devlin Report (Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on evidence of identification in criminal cases, House of Commons, April 26, 1976; Chairman: Hon. Lord Devlin). London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1976.
Buckhout, R. Trying too hard: Recognition in spite of poor recall. Unpublished manuscript, 1980.
Goldstein, A. G., Johnson, K. S., & Chance, J. Face recognition and verbal description of faces from memory. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, D.C., November 1977.
References
Buckhout, R. Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 1974, 231 (6), 23–31.
Buckhout, R., Alper, A., Chern, S., Silverberg, G., & Slomovits, M. Determinants of eyewitness performance on a lineup. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1974, 4, 191–192.
Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D., & Hoff, E. Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and bias in identification from photographs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975, 6, 71–74.
Buckhout, R., & Greenwald, M. Witness psychology. In R.Imwinkelreid (Ed.), Scientific and expert evidence in criminal advocacy. New York: Practising Law Institute, in press.
Ellison, K. W., & Buckhout, R. Psychology and criminal justice: Common grounds. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.
Hochberg, J., & Galper, R. Recognition of faces: I. An exploratory study. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 9, 619–620.
Loftus, E. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 560–572.
Lipton, J. P. On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 90–95.
Marshall, J. Law and psychology in conflict. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
Wells, G. L. Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 1546–1557.
Yin, R. K. Looking at upside-down faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81,141–145.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The author wishes to thank Molly Sidi, WNBC-TV, New York, for her fine imaginative presentation of the documentary film of which this study became a part. I am also grateful to the fine team of undergraduate students from Brooklyn College who acted in, showed, analyzed, and helped to think through the many elements of our research program on the eyewitness. Support for this research was provided in part by Faculty Research Award Program of the City University of New York. A brief write-up about Study 1 appeared in Social Action and the Law, 1975, 2(3). The entire report, with supporting data, additional tables, forms, and instructions, will be available as Center for Responsive Psychology Monograph No. CR- 22, 1980, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York 11210. Reprints of this article and CR-22 can be obtained by writing to the author at the Center for Responsive Psychology, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, New York, 11210.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Buckhout, R. Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 16, 307–310 (1980). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329551
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329551