Abstract
The lay-person's knowledge of the factors that influence eyewitness memory was examined by evaluating the manner in which mock jurors integrated eyewitness evidence to draw inferences about defendant culpability and the likelihood that an identification was correct. Three hundred and twenty-one undergraduates viewed a videotaped trial within which ten witness and identification factors were manipulated between trials. Manipulation checks showed that subjects demonstrated superior memory for the evidence and the manipulated variables had their intended impact on appropriate rating scales. However, only one variable, witness confidence, had reliable effects on subjects' perceptions of culpability, on the perceived likelihood that the identification was correct, and on several other relevant dependent variables. Eight variables that have been shown to affect identification accuracy in the empirical literature had trivial effects on mock jurors' inferences. It was concluded that lay-people are insensitive to the factors that influence eyewitness memory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. L. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments.American Psychologist, 37, 245–257.
Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1982). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.Law and Human Behavior, 1, 19–30.
Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony.Scientific American, 231, 23–31.
Buckhout, R., Alper, A., Chern, S., Silverberg, G., & Slomovits, M. (1974). Determinants of eyewitness performance on a lineup.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 191–192.
Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D., & Hoff, E. (1975). Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and bias in identification from photographs.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 71–74.
Clifford, B. R. (1983). Memory for voices: The feasibility and quality of earwitness evidence. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock and B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence. Chichester, Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identifications: The role of system and estimator variables.Law and Human behavior, 11, 223–258.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O'Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of context cues on eyewitness identification accuracy.Social Behaviour, 1, 113–134.
Davies, G., Shepherd, J., & Ellis, H. (1979). Effects of interpolated mugshot exposure on accuracy of eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 232–237.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1983) The influence of arousal on reliability of testimony. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock and B. R. Clifford (Eds.),Evaluating witness evidence. Chichester, Great Britain: John Wiley & Sons.
Deffenbacher, K. A. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Can we infer anything about their relationship?Law and Human Behavior, 4, 243–260.
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bothwell, R. K., & Brigham, J. C. (1986). Predicting eyewitness accuracy from confidence: The optimality hypothesis. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Deffenbacher, K. A., Leu, J. R., & Brown, E. L. (1979). Remembering faces and their immediate context. Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Phoenix.
Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior?Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15–30.
Devlin, Rt. Hon. Lord Patrick (chair). (1976).Report to the secretary of state for the house department of the departmental committee on evidence of identification in criminal cases. London: Stationery Office.
Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups—Partial remembering.Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287–293.
Goldman, A. H. (1986). Cognitive psychologists as expert witnesses: A problem in professional ethics.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 29–45.
Kenny, D. (1985). Quantitative methods for social psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.),The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1), pp. 487–508. New York: Erlbaum.
Konečni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1986). Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues: Critical notes and reflections.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 117–126.
Leippe, M. R., Wells, G. L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1978). Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 345–351.
Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What Price Justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy.Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations?Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.
Loftus, E. F. (1986). Experimental psychologist as advocate or impartial educator.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 63–78.
Loftus, E. F. (1983). Silence is not golden.American Psychologist, 38, 564–572.
Loftus, E. F. (1979).Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, Masschusetts.: Harvard University Press.
Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.
McCloskey, M., Egeth, H., & McKenna, J. (1986). The experimental psychologist in Court: The ethics of expert testimony.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1–13.
Shapiro, P., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). A Meta-analysis of the Facial Identification Literature.Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.
United States v. Amaral (1973). 488 F 2d 146 (9th Cir.).
Wells, G. L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analyses of effects.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 83–95.
Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony? In G. L. Wells, & E. F. Loftus (Eds.),Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact.Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688–696.
Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification.Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.
Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. L. Wells, & E. F. Loftus, (Eds.),Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Woocher, F. D. (1986). Legal principles governing expert testimony by experimental psychologists.Law and Human Behavior, 10, 47–61.
Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Accuracy of memory of male and female eyewitnesses to criminal assault and rape.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 89–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was funded by the National Science Foundation under grant No. SES-8411721 and National Institute of Justice under grant No. 84-IJ-CX-0010 to Steven Penrod. Carol Krafka and Peter Shapiro were instrumental in the planning of this research. In addition, we wish to thank Steven Adams. Randy Fleischer, Mary Kay Guth, Todd Martens, Ann Masse, Nancy Stevenson, and Zack Wagman for their assistance with various stages of this research. James Coward and Michael McCloskey provided insightful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
About this article
Cite this article
Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D. & Stuve, T.E. Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law Hum Behav 12, 41–55 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064273
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064273