Sensitizing Potential Jurors to Variations in Eyewitness Evidence Quality Using Counterfactual Thinking

Jurors often have difficulty evaluating eyewitness testimony. Counterfactual thinking is a type of mental simulation that informs causal inference. Encouraging jurors to think counterfactually about eyewitness factors may sensitize them to these factors' causal influence on eyewitness identification and testimony accuracy, improving their overall judgments (such as verdicts). One hundred twenty‐one undergraduate participants were randomly assigned to read a scenario containing either high‐quality or low‐quality eyewitness evidence and to evaluate eyewitness factors adopting either their default or a counterfactual mindset via a question‐order manipulation. Logistic regressions and analyses of variance revealed that a counterfactual mindset lowered perceptions of eyewitness accuracy and guilty verdicts (compared with the default mindset) when the evidence was poor; a counterfactual mindset, however, did not increase perceptions of accuracy and guilty verdicts when evidence was strong. We discuss possible mechanisms underlying these effects and identify several potential avenues for future research.Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Moderating Effect of Ecphoric Experience on Post‐identification Feedback: A Critical Test of the Cues‐based Inference Conceptualization

Confidence inflation from confirming post‐identification feedback is greater when the eyewitness is inaccurate than when the eyewitness is accurate, which is evidence that witnesses infer their confidence from feedback only to the extent that their internal cues are weak. But the accurate/inaccurate asymmetry has alternative interpretations. A critical test between these interpretations was conducted by including disconfirming feedback conditions. Student participants (n = 404) witnessed a mock crime, had either a strong or weak ecphoric experience when making their line‐up identifications, and subsequently received no feedback, confirming feedback, or disconfirming feedback. Consistent with a cues‐based conceptualization of the feedback effect, disconfirming feedback influenced witnesses with weak ecphoric experiences more than witnesses with strong ecphoric experiences, ironically increasing the confidence‐accuracy relation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of Eyewitness Evidence on Plea-Bargain Decisions by Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys1

The present experiment tested the relative impact of two types of eyewitness evidence (identification and non identification) on plea-bargain decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A hypothetical case involving a robbery was mailed to three prosecutors and three defense attorneys in each of 47 states. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive a case in which an eyewitness claimed: (a) the defendant was the criminal (identification), (b) the defendant was not the criminal (non identification), or (c) it was not possible to tell whether the defendant was the criminal (control). Similar to findings with jurors, both prosecutors and defense attorneys underutilized the non identification information in making their plea-bargain decisions. In the case of the prosecutors, there was evidence that the underutilization of eyewitness non identification was at least partially mediated by the prosecutors' predictions of juror reaction to the evidence.     

The effects of body‐worn camera footage and eyewitness race on jurors' perceptions of police use of force

Police use of body‐worn cameras (BWCs) is increasingly common in the USA. This article reports the results of one of the first experimental examinations of the effects of three BWC status conditions (absent, transcribed, viewed) and eyewitness race (Black, White) on mock jurors' case judgments, in a case in which a community member (defendant) was charged with resisting arrest but where the officer's use of force in conducting the arrest was controversial. Results provide evidence of significant main effects of both eyewitness race and BWC status. When the eyewitness supporting the defendant was White, mock jurors were less likely to vote the defendant guilty of resisting arrest, as well as more likely to consider the defendant credible and the officer culpable for the incident. In addition, when BWC footage of the arrest was viewed, compared with transcribed or absent, participants were less likely to vote the defendant guilty of resisting arrest, and also rated the officer's use of force less justifiable, and the officer more culpable and less credible. Follow‐up analyses demonstrated that these relationships between BWC condition and case judgments were all mediated by moral outrage toward the officer.     

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.     

Speech style and occupational status affect assessments of eyewitness testimony

This study examined how speech style and occupational status affect mock jurors' assessments of eyewitness testimony. Mock jurors (n = 120) watched a video of a man testifying about witnessing an attempted robbery. The eyewitness exhibited either a powerless or powerful speech style and reported either a high or low (or no) status occupation during his testimony. Results indicated that high occupation status and powerful speech style led to more favorable evaluations of the eyewitness's testimony and of the case against the defendant than powerless speech style and low/no occupation status. Implications of these results on considerations of eyewitness testimony and future research are discussed.     

Situationally Equivocal Eyewitness Evidence and the Violence of Crimes

Eyewitness evidence is amongst the most important types of evidence in investigative and juridical proceedings. Yet, eyewitness evidence frequently derives from observations made under situationally equivocal conditions, including such factors as darkness and physical obstruction of view. The effect of the violence of a given crime on potential jurors' evaluation of such equivocal evidence was addressed. A witness's identification of a suspect in a violent crime was generated in three versions, varying only in the level of violence of the crime. Respondents were more likely to accept this identification as accurate under more violent conditions and were also less likely to report noticing or considering equivocal aspects (darkness and physical obstruction) in situations of greater violence. Predisposing factors to judgement of guilt lay significantly in the acceptance of punishment as a viable deterrent to crime and of societal guilt for the criminal's behaviour, although political or religious orientations were not shown to influence these results, and none of these factors interacted with the violence of the crime to influence judgement of guilt or innocence. These findings indicate the importance of affective factors in judgements of guilt or innocence, especially when these judgements are based on situationally equivocal eyewitness evidence. Copyright © 2013 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.     

Skill Level,Self‐Views and Self‐Theories as Sources of Error in Self‐Assessment

People's impressions of the quality of their performances are often surprisingly inaccurate. In this paper, I discuss three specific factors that contribute to error in self‐assessment. First, at a most basic level, individuals must possess a certain level of knowledge to simply distinguish weak from strong performances. Thus, a lack of skill can contribute to erroneous self‐assessments. Second, even those who possess skill might rely on the wrong information to evaluate their performances. I discuss how relying on preexisting self‐views can lead estimates of one's performance astray. Third, I discuss how motivational forces can play an indirect role in overconfidence. In particular, theories of intelligence that inspire people to think well of themselves also inspire behaviors that contribute to overconfident impressions of how well one has performed on a task. Finally, I discuss how we can draw on this research to improve accuracy in self‐assessments.     

Getting the Picture: Effects of Sketch Plans and Photographs on Children's,Adolescents' and Adults' Eyewitness Recall

We compared the effects of three types of visual aid on free recall across three age groups in an eyewitness paradigm. Child, adolescent and adult participants (N = 144) viewed a short film depicting a non‐violent crime and, following a brief delay, gave a free‐recall account. Participants then described the event once again, with the aid of their own sketch plan, a provided sketch plan or photograph, or with no visual aid. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded for the type and accuracy of information reported. Across all age groups, relative to the control condition, all three visual aids increased the amount of new information reported during the second free‐recall account and helped participants to maintain accuracy. All three visual aids therefore had a positive effect on participants' performance; in a forensic setting, however, witnesses' own sketch plans are likely to be the safest, most easily applied and most time effective.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Another Look at the Impact of Juror Sentiments toward Defendants on Juridic Decisions

Abstract

This experiment tested the hypothesis that jurors' preexisting biases (sentiments) toward an accused would have a much stronger impact on the sentences that jurors recommended than on the verdicts they rendered. Specifically, a balance theory analysis of juridic decisions specifies that predeliberation sentiments toward the defendant would have little if any direct effect on jury verdicts and would be associated with verdicts rendered only if the information establishing these sentiments also implied a unit relation between the defendant and the crime. Six-person juries deliberated the case of an accused robber and murderer who had no prior criminal record, a prior conviction for a dissimilar crime, or a prior conviction for a similar crime. While on the witness stand, the defendant either withheld information or provided answers for all questions. The results provided strong support for the hypothesis. In addition, jurors' predeliberation sentiments toward the accused were unrelated either to the tone of juridic deliberations or to postdeliberation assessments of the defendant's guilt. By contrast, juror sentiments toward the defendant were a solid predictor of the severity of sentences assigned by those who voted to convict the accused.     

The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates

Discriminating accurate from mistaken eyewitness identifications is a major issue facing criminal justice systems. This study examined whether eyewitness confidence assists such decisions under a variety of conditions using a confidence-accuracy (CA) calibration approach. Participants (N = 1,200) viewed a simulated crime and attempted 2 separate identifications from 8-person target-present or target-absent lineups. Confidence and accuracy were calibrated for choosers (but not nonchoosers) for both targets under all conditions. Lower overconfidence was associated with higher diagnosticity, lower target-absent base rates, and shorter identification latencies. Although researchers agree that courtroom expressions of confidence are uninformative, our findings indicate that confidence assessments obtained immediately after a positive identification can provide a useful guide for investigators about the likely accuracy of an identification.     

Judge's Instruction on Eyewitness Testimony: Evaluation and Revision1

Studies of the reliability of eyewitness identification show that such testimony may frequently be inaccurate; because of this inherent unreliability, the law has established certain safeguards to the use of eyewitness evidence. One safeguard has been the development of an instruction that a judge may use to focus jurors' attention on the eyewitness issue. The effectiveness of this instruction has never been assessed, although other studies confirm that jurors frequently misunderstand or incorrectly use instructions they get from the judge. The purpose of these studies was to evaluate comprehension of this instruction in the context of a videotaped trial and to develop a simplified instruction that would be easier for jurors to understand. Compared to jurors who heard the existing instruction, those with the revised version were more knowledgeable of the factors to consider when listening to eyewitness testimony and were less likely to convict the defendant. A sample of superior court judges in the U.S. thought the simplified instruction was more effective than the existing version at conveying the intended legal concepts to the jury, but also rated it as more strongly biased toward the defense.     

Evaluating arguments during instigations of defence motivation and accuracy motivation

When people evaluate the strength of an argument, their motivations are likely to influence the evaluation. However, few studies have specifically investigated the influences of motivational factors on argument evaluation. This study examined the effects of defence and accuracy motivations on argument evaluation. According to the compatibility between the advocated positions of arguments and participants' prior beliefs and the objective strength of arguments, participants evaluated four types of arguments: compatible‐strong, compatible‐weak, incompatible‐strong, and incompatible‐weak arguments. Experiment 1 revealed that participants possessing a high defence motivation rated compatible‐weak arguments as stronger and incompatible‐strong ones as weaker than participants possessing a low defence motivation. However, the strength ratings between the high and low defence groups regarding both compatible‐strong and incompatible‐weak arguments were similar. Experiment 2 revealed that when participants possessed a high accuracy motivation, they rated compatible‐weak arguments as weaker and incompatible‐strong ones as stronger than when they possessed a low accuracy motivation. However, participants' ratings on both compatible‐strong and incompatible‐weak arguments were similar when comparing high and low accuracy conditions. The results suggest that defence and accuracy motivations are two major motives influencing argument evaluation. However, they primarily influence the evaluation results for compatible‐weak and incompatible‐strong arguments, but not for compatible‐strong and incompatible‐weak arguments.     

Order and Strength Matter for Evaluation of Alibi and Eyewitness Evidence

We explored the effects of presentation order and evidence strength on participants acting as investigators in a criminal context. Participants evaluated evidence and suspect guilt in a study in which alibi witness and eyewitness evidence of varying strength, presented in different orders, were compared. In contrast to research on the confirmation bias, which suggests that evidence presented early distorts subsequent evaluations of evidence, the present findings suggest that under certain circumstances, evidence received most recently can have a greater impact on decision‐making. Recency effects were observed most frequently when recent evidence was particularly strong and often when it contradicted previously encountered strong evidence. The impact of recency extended beyond the impact of evidence and to evaluations of the credibility of individual pieces of evidence. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.