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。     

法律心理学研究的新热点--儿童目击证人研究

为满足获取儿童目击证人准确证词的司法需求,大量西方法律心理学家涉足这一领域,使儿童目击证人研究成为近十多年来法律心理学研究的新热点。鉴于我国法律还没有对儿童作为目击证人作明文规定,西方心理学家的研究成果值得我国法律心理学界关注。     

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.     

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。     

关于证人证词可靠性的研究

证人的错误证词是导致错误判案的重要原因,因此如何鉴定证人证词的可靠性,从中去伪存真,对司法实践具有非常重大的意义。为此本文从情境、个体心理、社会心理三个方面分析影响成年证人证词可靠性的因素,并在此基础上探究应该采取何种措施来提高证词的可靠性与准确性。     

目击见证的心理学研究

从心理学的角度分析和研究目击见证有着重要的理论意义和实践意义。目击见证的心理学研究已形成了沿着估计变量和系统变量两个方向进行的思路,并取得了大量的研究成果。同时,已有的研究也启示,要加强司法实践和心理学研究的联系,多途径多方法对目击见证进行研究。     

反馈对目击证人辨认信心的影响

探讨辨认主持人对目击证人的辨认给予不同反馈对其辨认信心的影响。213名被试参加实验。先看一段模拟罪犯逃逸时的录像,然后对11张相继呈现的人像照片做辨认和确定程度的判断。随机给予肯定、否定或没有反馈之后,被试做辨认确定程度和其他一些相关问题的判断。结果表明,辨认错误的证人在得到肯定反馈后,受到的影响较小;而得到否定反馈后,受到的影响较大。不同专业背景、不同性别的被试受到反馈的影响也有所不同。     

不同列队呈现方式下反馈对目击证人辨认自信心的影响

采用辨认后反馈范式研究不同队列呈现方式下反馈对目击证人辨认自信心的影响。结果发现：（1）所有辨认者中,反馈组被试自信心显著高于控制组被试的自信心;反馈方式与辨认选择的交互作用显著,辨认选择与列队呈现方式的交互作用显著;（2）积极辨认者中,反馈组被试的自信心显著高于控制组被试的自信心;正确辨认被试的自信心显著高于错误辨认被试的自信心。结果表明：目击辨认中存在辨认后反馈效应;积极辨认者中辨认自信心可以作为辨认准确性的一个参考指标。     

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     

Juror Underutilization of Eyewitness Nonidentifications: A Test of the Disconfirmed Expectancy Explanation1

The impact of two types of eyewitness testimony on mock jurors' judgments was explored. A crime eyewitness either testified that the defendant definitely was the robber (identification), definitely was not the robber (nonidentification), or that they weren't sure if he was or was not the robber (control). An alibi eyewitness testified that the defendant either definitely was at the alibi location (identification), definitely was not at the alibi location (nonidentification), or he wasn't sure if the defendant was or was not at the alibi location (control). Strength of case was also manipulated. Results show that crime eyewitness identifications and alibi eyewitness nonidentifications were underutilized. A crime eyewitness by alibi eyewitness interaction revealed that within the crime eyewitness identification condition alibi identification was underutilized whereas with the other two crime eyewitness conditions, alibi nonidentification information was underutilized. The results supported a disconfirmed expectancy explanation.     

What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony

In a survey, 160 US judges indicated their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony. Although correct on some issues, judges were often wrong on important issues such as whether at trial eyewitness confidence is a good indicator of eyewitness accuracy, and if jurors can distinguish accurate from inaccurate witnesses. Increased knowledge was associated with: a willingness to permit legal safeguards, including expert testimony at trial; a belief that jurors have limited knowledge of eyewitness factors; a reluctance to convict defendants solely from eyewitness testimony; a more accurate estimate of the extent to which wrongful convictions result from eyewitness error; and a belief that judges need more eyewitness training. Additional training about factors and procedures that affect eyewitness accuracy may help judges reduce the number of wrongful convictions. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

From the lab to the police station. A successful application of eyewitness research

The U.S. Department of Justice released the first national guide for collecting and preserving eyewitness evidence in October 1999. Scientific psychology played a large role in making a case for these procedural guidelines as well as in setting a scientific foundation for the guidelines, and eyewitness researchers directly participated in writing them. The authors describe how eyewitness researchers shaped understanding of eyewitness evidence issues over a long period of time through research and theory on system variables. Additional pressure for guidelines was applied by psychologists through expert testimony that focused on deficiencies in the procedures used to collect the eyewitness evidence. DNA exoneration cases were particularly important in leading U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno to notice the eyewitness literature in psychology and to order the National Institute of Justice to coordinate the development of national guidelines. The authors describe their experience as members of the working group, which included prosecutors, defense lawyers, and law enforcement officers from across the country.     

Degree of Detail of Eyewitness Testimony and Mock Juror Judgments1

The influence of the degree of detail of eyewitness testimony on two sides of a court case was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment subject-jurors read a civil court case involving an automobile-pedestrian accident. The plaintiff and the defendant presented conflicting eyewitness accounts. Judgments of the relative credibility of the eyewitnesses on each side and the percentage of negligence of the parties were influenced by the relative degree of detail of the eyewitness testimony on each side. In the second experiment subject-jurors read a criminal court case involving robbery and murder. The prosecution and defense presented conflicting eyewitness accounts. The degree of detail of the prosecution eyewitness testimony influenced judgments of guilt and judgments of the credibility of the eyewitnesses. An examination of the reasons for verdicts and credibility judgments revealed that some subjects inferred that an eyewitness who gave testimony with a greater degree of detail had a better memory for the trivial details and the culprit than an eyewitness who gave testimony with a lesser degree of detail. Implications of these results for the legal system are discussed.     

What U.S. law enforcement officers know and believe about eyewitness factors,eyewitness interviews and identification procedures

We surveyed 532 U.S. law enforcement officers about eyewitness factors, and how they conduct eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. There were 83 officers from departments that had implemented eyewitness reforms, and 449 officers from departments that had not implemented reforms. Officers from both samples had limited knowledge of eyewitness factors. They also reported conducting interviews and identification procedures in a manner that violated many provisions of the National Institute of Justice's Guide and Training Manual. Although officers in reform departments reported following more correct lineup procedures than officers in non‐reform departments, the two groups did not differ in knowledge of eyewitness factors or in their use of proper interviewing procedures. Only 18% of the reform officers and 1% of the non‐reform officers had both read the Guide and received training based on it. We discuss the implications of the present study for training U.S. law enforcement officers about eyewitness testimony. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.