Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues

Critical notes and reflections

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

This article makes two major points in regard to expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. First, the attention devoted by psychologists to eyewitness identification issues is far out of proportion to the incidence of trials involving eyewitness identifications of criminal defendants; furthermore, the often-expressed concern over wrongful convictions is probably misplaced. Second, the experimental methods used in studies of eyewitness performance are fundamentally unsuited for drawing conclusions about actual witnesses. Hence, there is not an adequate scientific foundation for expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. Archival research is perhaps the most promising approach to the study of the criminal justice 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

  • Clifford, B. R. (1979). Eyewitness testimony: The bridging of a credibility gap. In D. Farrington & P. Hawkins (Eds.),Psychology, law and legal processes. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, E. B., & Konečni, V. J. (1980). On the external validity of decision-making research: What do we know about decisions in the real world? In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.),Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, E. B., & Konečni, V. J. (1982). Social psychology and the law: A decision-making approach to the criminal justice system. In V. J. Konečni & E. B. Ebbesen (Eds.),The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. S., Wilson, C. E., & Mills, M. K. (1982). The victim's decision to report the crime. In V. J. Konečni & E. B. Ebbesen (Eds.),The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konečni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1982a). An analysis of the sentencing system. In V. J. Konečni & E. B. Ebbesen (Eds.).The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konečni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1982b). Social psychology and the law: The choice of research problems, settings, and methodology. In V. J. Konečni & E. B. Ebbesen (Eds.),The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1983). What do we really know about cross-race eyewitness identification? In S. Lloyd-Bostock and B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1983a) Silence is not golden.American Psychologists, 38, 564–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F. (1983b). Whose shadow is crooked?American Psychologist, 38, 576–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loh, W. D. (1981). Psycholegal research: Past and present.Michigan Law Review, 79, 659–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malpass, R. S. (1981). Training in face recognition. In. G. Davies, H. Ellis, J. Shepherd (Eds.),Perceiving and remembering faces. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1980). Realism and eyewitness identification research.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 347–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983a). A time to speak, or a time to keep silence?American Psychologist, 38, 573–575.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, C. L. (1976). Some apparent violations of the representativeness heuristic in human judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 599–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rembar, C. (1980).The law of the land: The evolution of our legal system. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. Q. (1983). Thinking about crime: The debate over deterrence.The Atlantic Monthly, September, 72–88.

  • Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. T. (1982). Police awareness of the fallibility of eyewitness identification.Canadian Police College Journal, 6, 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of California, 92093, San Diego, La Jolla CA

    Vladimir J. Konečni & Ebbe B. Ebbesen

Authors
  1. Vladimir J. Konečni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ebbe B. Ebbesen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Ebbe B. Ebbesen did not participate at the Johns Hopkins conference but has contributed to the written version of this paper. This is because the San Diego Psychology-Law Research Project, on which some of the comments in the paper are based, has been a collaborative effort from its inception in 1974.

About this article

Cite this article

Konečni, V.J., Ebbesen, E.B. Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues. Law Hum Behav 10, 117–126 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044563

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044563

Keywords

Search

Navigation