Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expert testimony about eyewitness identification

A critique

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Recent research concerning eyewitness identification is surveyed with respect to its adequacy (reliability and validity) to support expert testimony. The conclusion is that the scientific basis is generally inadequate and that the more we have learned about various aspects of eyewitness identification, the most inadequate it appears. The argument is made that presentation in policy settings requires greater circumspection than would be required in presentation to scientific audiences. Prudential rules are suggested. They would have the effect of sharply reducing participation in the adversarial system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bersoff, D. N. (1986). Psychologists and the judicial system: A broader perspective.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 151–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, J. C., & Cairns, D. L. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1394–1410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony.Scientific American, 231, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987a). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context.Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987b). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables.Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O'Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy.Social Behaviour, 1, 113–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutshall, J., & Yuille, J. C. (1989). Field studies of eyewitness memory of actual crimes. In D. C. Raskin (Ed.),Psychological methods in criminal investigation and evidence (pp. 97–124). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeth, H. E., & McCloskey, M. (1984a). The jury is still out: A reply to Deffenbacher.American Psychologist, 39, 1068–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egeth, H. E., & McCloskey, M. (1984b). Expert testimony about eyewitness behavior: Is it safe and effective? In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.),Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 283–303). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R. (1964). Physiological activity and performance: A comparison of kindergarten children with young adults.Psychological Monographs, 78 (10, Whole No. 587).

  • Elliott, R. (1985). On the reliability ofEyewitness Testimony: A retrospective review.Psychological Reports, 57, 219–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R. (1990). More on the discredibility of eyewitnesses.Psychological Reports, 67, 1211–1215.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, R., Farrington, B., & Manheimer, H. (1988). Eyewitnesses credible and discredible.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1411–1422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. H. (1986). Cognitive psychologists as expert witnesses: A problem in professional ethics.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P., & Pembroke, M. (1993).Response biases in lineups and showups.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 525–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, G. S., Aman, C., & Hirschman, J. (1987). Child sexual and physical abuse: Children's testimony. In S. Ceci, M. Toglia, & D. Ross (Eds.),Children's eyewitness memory (pp. 1–20). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. F., Loftus, E. F., & Tousignant, J. P. (1984). Postevent information and changes in recollection for a natural event. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.),Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 124–141). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (1980, June).From eyewitness testimony to beyond reasonable doubt. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law and Society Association, Madison, WI.

  • Houts, M. (1956).From evidence to guilt. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts.American Psychologist, 44, 1089–1098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konecni, V. J., & Ebbeson, E. B. (1986). Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues: Critical notes and reflections.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 58–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 167–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1974, December). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness.Psychology Today, pp. 116–119.

  • Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification.Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1986a). Experimental psychologist as advocate or impartial educator.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1986b). Ten years in the life of an expert witness.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 241–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F., & Hoffman, H. G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of new memories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 100–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.”Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maass, A., & Kohnken, G. (1989). Eyewitness identification: Simulating the “weapon effect.”Law and Human Behavior, 13, 397–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M. M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury.American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., Egeth, H. E., & McKenna, J. (1986). The experimental psychologist in court: The ethics of expert testimony.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEwan, N. H., & Yuille, J. C. (1981, June).The effects of training and experience on eyewitness memory. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association.

  • Neiss, R. (1990). Ending arousal's reign of error: A reply to Anderson.Psychological Bulletin, 107, 101–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 385–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Assessing the need for and impact of eyewitness expert testimony on jury decisionmaking.Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 1001–1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethinic eyewitness identification: A field study.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972–984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. D., & Bruce, D. (1984). On the external validity of questioning effects in eyewitness testimony.International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 33–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. D., Tollestrup, P., Hammersly, R., McFadzen, E., & Christensen, A. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281 (1984).

  • Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect.Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, V., Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). Facial recognition: Weapon effect and attentional focus.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 845–859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N. J., & Schuller, R. A. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony.Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1984). A reanalysis of the expert testimony issue. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.),Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 304–314). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime.Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Dartmouth College, 03755, Hanover, NH

    Rogers Elliott

Authors
  1. Rogers Elliott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article is an adaptation of a portion of the text from which I gave an invited address for Division 41 at the American Psychological Association meetings in Boston, MA, on August 11, 1990. I thank Dawn Dekle and Geoff Feinberg for their help in preparing both the manuscript and the talk. I want particularly to thank Brian Culter for his extensive and thoughtful critique of the original text.

About this article

Cite this article

Elliott, R. Expert testimony about eyewitness identification. Law Hum Behav 17, 423–437 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044376

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044376

Keywords

Search

Navigation