目击证人研究

目击证人的证词对维持司法系统公正的重要性使得对目击证人的研究成为当今法律心理学和司法领域的热点之一。目击证人的错误证词是导致锗判案件的最常见原因。警方在询问、队列辨认与照片识别中的特定程序和行为,目击证人的记忆、年龄、性别、种族、自信程度等．都将影响证词的准确性。     

儿童目击证人取证过程的玩偶辅助研究

儿童目击证人取证是司法实践的难题之一,警方的取证策略和方式被批评对儿童有一定的暗示作用,从而影响儿童证词的准确性。本项研究考察了玩偶辅助的取证模式对学龄前儿童目击证人的影响。实验显示在目击成人与儿童冲突的事件中使用玩偶辅助取证模式显著优于传统的警方提问取证模式,并且不会给学龄前儿童造成严重的误导。     

心理学关于目击证人证言可靠性实证研究

目击证人的证词在刑事诉讼中有着极为重要的作用,但是由于证人对案件的记忆往往会受到其自身和外界各种因素的干扰,因此,对于目击证人证词可靠性的研究引起了心理学界的关注,西方心理学界自上个世纪七十年代以来,从证人的年龄性别、心理状态、对证人的询问方式以及辨认的情景等方面进行了大量的实证研究,为司法实践提供了重要的启示。本文从以上四个方面全面总结了西方心理学界关于证人证词可靠性的实证研究,并作了分析与展望。     

目击证人辨认研究

目击证人辨认对司法审判具有重要的意义,这使其成为心理学研究领域的热点之一。本文重点介绍了影响目击证人辨认准确性的因素,即估计者变量和系统变量,并分析了目击证人辨认研究的现存问题。     

目击辨认研究概览

目击辨认的结果作为证据对于法庭判决具有重要意义。DNA证据显示辨认似乎不可靠,心理学家试图了解影响辨认准确性的因素。文章介绍了西方目击辨认研究的范式,估计变量和系统变量对辨认的影响,并分析目击辨认研究存在的理论缺乏和外部效度问题,从而为今后研究提供参考     

目击证人暗示感受性的研究及进展

暗示感受性指一个人对误导信息的易感性或抵抗力.在目击证人记忆研究领域,有两种暗示感受性:延迟的提取错误和立即的误导信息接受.研究者用不同方法对这两种类型的暗示感受性及影响因素进行研究,并进行整合.这对司法实践中证人证词真实性鉴别有重要理论和实践意义.     

西方有关儿童经济心理的研究

西方国家的心理学家对儿童的经济心理进行了广泛的研究.这方面不仅有大量的论文发表而且还出版专门的学术刊物.当然,这一领域的研究涉及社会学、教育学和经济学等方面,但本文只侧重介绍西方在研究儿童是怎样理解经济关系领域中的问题以及儿童经济心理社会化过程等方面的动态.正如在该领域中有众多专著出版的英国心理学家Furnham A.所指出的一样,“研究儿童对经济概念和经济规律的理解能比研究儿童对无切身关系的自然规律的理解会获得关于儿童思维过程的更为实际的信息.”     

国内青少年自尊研究常用量表适用及问题综述

自古以来，我国就非常重视自尊、自爱，但是由于起步较晚，我国的自尊研究不像西方心理学家们那样系统，内容也没有西方丰富，大量的研究量表也是借鉴和引用国外的研究成果。但在西方早期自尊理论及近年研究趋向的引导下，自尊研究受到我国越来越多的心理学家的重视，到20世纪90年代，心理学家们进行了很多富有成效的研究，加快推动了国内自尊研究的发展。     

证人心理——司法心理学的一个专题介绍

在法律中“证人”是指以本人所知道的情况对案件事实作证的人。从社会心理学的角度来说,证人是一些人在处理案件的过程中所担任的特定社会角色。证人制度在古罗马法中就已形成。古罗马法对证人资格有严格限制,如对于法律行为的证明,非在场人不得作为证人等。在现代西方一些国家的诉讼立法中,都有关于证人资格的规定。一般说,凡能了解和表达证言事实,并能理解宣誓的法律义务的人,除法律另有规定者外,均可为证人。有的国家还认为鉴定人(如鉴定心理疾患的专家)可以充当证人,这些人便是所谓的“专家证人”。什么是证人心理学呢?简单说来,证人心理学是一门研究证人在担任证人这种特定的社会角色时的心理活动规律的科学。“证人”这一身份,具有严格的时间性和空间性。在某一案件中成为证人的人同时     

当代美英法律心理学研究概况

本文概述了当代美英法律心理学研究的状况,着重论述了它的主要研究领域:证人证言,讯问与供述,法庭心理学,陪审团研究,犯罪心理学,被害人心理学以及司法程序心理学,这些内容对于深化我国的法律心理学研究,具有积极意义。     

Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors,judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts

Knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy was examined in a sample of jurors, judges and law enforcement professionals. Participants completed a survey in which they were asked to agree or disagree with 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to a sample of eyewitness experts who completed the same survey. Participant responses differed significantly from responses of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with the experts on 87% of the issues, while judges and law enforcement disagreed with the experts on 60% of the issues. The findings show a large deficiency in knowledge of eyewitness memory amongst jurors, judges and law enforcement personnel, indicating that the legal system may benefit from expert assistance in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that the following phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent information, child witness suggestibility, attitudes and expectations, hypnotic suggestibility, alcoholic intoxication, the crossrace bias, weapon focus, the accuracy-confidence correlation, the forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation format, and unconscious transference. Results also indicate that these experts set high standards before agreeing to testify. Despite limitations, these results should help to shape expert testimony so that it more accurately represents opinions in the scientific community.     

The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony: A Comparison of Experts and Prospective Jurors

To compare people's beliefs about eyewitness testimony with expert opinion, 79 college students and community adults filled out a questionnaire in which they reported whether they agreed or disagreed with 21 statements previously used in a survey of eyewitness experts (Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989). The results indicated that there was a significant inter-item correlation of agreement rates but that subjects differed from the experts on 15 of these items. For courts seeking to determine the extent to which juries need assistance in their evaluations of eyewitness evidence, these findings offer a tentative list of topics worthy of either expert testimony or cautionary instructions from the judge.     

A Comparison of What U.S. Judges and Students Know and Believe About Eyewitness Testimony

We compared what 160 U.S. judges, 57 law students, and 121 undergraduates know and believe about factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Judges were no more knowledgeable than were undergraduates, and both groups were less knowledgeable than were law students. For all 3 groups, increased knowledge of eyewitness factors was associated with beliefs that might reduce wrongful convictions. Participants in all 3 groups underestimated what potential jurors know about eyewitness testimony. The results suggest that increasing judges' knowledge of eyewitness testimony might help them to reduce wrongful convictions and to more accurately assess when eyewitness experts are needed. The results also suggest that law schools need to do a better job of educating law students about eyewitness testimony.     

Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis

This experiment examines the influence of expert psychological testimony on juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors viewed versions of a videotaped trial, rated the credibility of the eyewitness and the strength of the prosecution's and defense's cases, and rendered verdicts. In the absence of expert testimony jurors were insensitive to eyewitness evidence. Expert testimony improved juror sensitivity to eyewitness evidence without making them more skeptical about the accuracy of the eyewitness identification. Few differences emerged between the experienced jurors and undergraduate mock jurors.     

What Psychologists Know and Believe about Memory: A Survey of Practitioners

We surveyed 858 licensed psychologists, members of the Norwegian Psychological Association, about their knowledge and beliefs about human memory. The results were compared to the results of parallel surveys of legal professionals and lay persons, and evaluated in the light of the results of current memory science. The results indicate that psychologists are not memory experts qua psychologists; as a group, psychologists do not score above the level of knowledge of lay persons or trial judges on issues of eyewitness memory, and a substantial minority of the sample of respondents harbours scientifically unproven ideas of memory. The implications of these findings for psychological practice, with special reference to the court room, are briefly discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation

Lay opinions concerning eyewitness topics were surveyed in three community samples of juror‐eligible participants in Canada. The scientific reliability of these topics had been previously evaluated by eyewitness experts. The first survey assessed participant responses to the identically worded expert items. Participants responded to many statements with greater accuracy than anticipated. Two subsequent surveys assessed the consistency of lay knowledge across variations in the directionality and wording of items and the provision of additional contextual information. Taken together, jury‐eligible participants frequently responded to survey items in ways that closely resembled the responses of experts and suggested awareness and understanding of these topics at levels beyond those previously obtained. Further, the provision of contextual information increased response accuracy and reduced the frequencies of ‘Don't Know’ responses. Deficiencies in knowledge for 50% of the topics were also apparent; however, these topics were frequently those for which the experts themselves had not reached consensus. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science

This article examines the legal and scientific issues inherent in the use of expert psychological testimony on the factors that affect eyewitness reliability. First, the history of the use of such expert testimony is traced. Next, we look at the criteria that state and federal courts have used in determining whether to admit such testimony, as well as the grounds upon which the testimony has been excluded. We then examine the Daubert decision and discuss its implications for the use of expert eyewitness testimony. We conclude by reviewing eyewitness research and research on jury decision-making that is likely to assume new importance in the post-Daubert era.     

Perspectives on the role of the eyewitness expert

Extensive controversy over the appropriate application of expert knowledge regarding issues of eyewitness accuracy led to a conference and a special issue of taw and Human Behavior in 1986. Arguments were presented both in support of and against the eyewitness researcher as expert testifier. The current research explored the views of the general public (N = 50), defense attorneys (N = 14), and prosecutors (N = 10) with regard to the use of eyewitness expertise in each of four roles (court-appointed expert, consultant, researcher, expert tesdfier for the defense). Extensive differences of opinion were found across both samples and expert roles. In general, prosecutors held significantly more negative views of the usefulness of expert witnesses for the defense than did the public or defense attorneys. The role of court-appointed expert was viewed positively by all three groups and may present a useful alternative to the battles of experts that may result from current practices.     

Solving the eyewitness problem

Faulty eyewitness testimony is a major source of wrongful convictions. Four solutions are examined to safeguard against mistaken testimony having undue impact: (1) to overturn any conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, (2) to require that an attorney be present at any pretrial identification procedure, (3) to allow an expert to testify during the trial about factors of perception and memory that could affect a witness's accuracy, and (4) to have the judge deliver a cautionary instruction to the jury, admonishing them to carefully scrutinize eyewitness testimony, or to educate them about such testimony. Each alternative is discussed within the context of psychological research and legal cases.