Victim Impact Testimony and Juror Judgments: The Effects of Harm Information and Witness Demeanor1

Victim impact testimony (i.e., testimony concerning the harmful consequences on the victim's surviving family) was examined to determine its effect on the sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Undergraduate students (N= 293) watched a videotaped murder trial simulation, rendered verdicts, and made sentencing judgments. During the penalty phase of the trial, participants were either given no victim impact testimony, or they were given victim impact testimony that varied both the severity of the harm information (mild harm/ severe harm) and the demeanor of the witness (low affect/high affect). The results indicate that information concerning the harm experienced by the victim's relatives, not the affective demeanor of the witness, influenced sentencing judgments. Implications for the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Payne v. Tennessee (1991) are discussed.     

Effects of Photographic Evidence on Mock Juror Judgement1

Effects of three levels of photographic evidence (color, black & white, no photograph) on 144 female subjects' monetary awards to an injured plaintiff were investigated in a 3 × 2 × 3 factorial design. Also manipulated were two levels of the severity of the plaintiff's injury and three levels of defendant blame. As predicted, a significant three-way interaction was observed such that the magnitude of the difference in monetary damages awarded the more and less severely injured plaintiff was greatest in the presence of the color photograph depicting injuries and when defendant blame was high. An emotional arousal interpretation for the effects of photographic evidence is tentatively offered.     

Polygraph Testimony and Juror Judgments: A Comparison of the Guilty Knowledge Test and the Control Question Test1

The present experiment investigated the impact of the Control Question Test (CQT) and the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) on the verdicts of mock jurors. Although studies have indicated that polygraph evidence has little influence on jurors' verdicts (Cavoukian & Heselgrave, 1980; Spanos, Myers, Dubreuil, & Pawlak, 1992–1993), no research has previously distinguished between the different types of polygraph tests and their impact on juror verdicts. In the present study, jurors were shown a videotape of a simulated rape-murder trial that contained either CQT polygraph evidence, GKT polygraph evidence, or no polygraph evidence. No differences were found among the 3 conditions for either jury verdicts or individual juror verdicts, and jurors tended to rate both forms of polygraph testimony below other forms of equally suspect evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, in its influence on their decision-making process.     

The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1

Loftus (1974) had subjects read summaries of criminal trials that contained the testimony of either credible or discredited prosecution eyewitnesses, and found no effect of discrediting an eyewitness. Instead, almost as many subjects voted guilty with a discredited eyewitness as with a credible eyewitness; this led Loftus to the conclusion that jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony. Loftus's conclusion was subsequently challenged by others who reported a strong discrediting effect. A series of three experiments using college students was conducted to explore the characteristics of trial summaries that might account for the discrepancy in results, such as inclusion of judicial instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or an eyewitness's reaffirmation of his testimony following discrediting. In all cases, a strong discrediting effect was found. Apparently the discrediting effect appears regardless of wide variation in content of trial summaries. The present data do not support the overbelief claim.     

Change Blindness and Eyewitness Testimony

The authors explored the relevance of research on change blindness to eyewitness identification and testimony under intentional and incidental memory conditions. Participants (N = 80, 40 men and 40 women) viewed a video enactment of a burglary in which the identity of the burglar changed at the halfway point of the film. Half of participants were briefed to remember the content, and the other half were not. All were tested for the recall of the content, awareness of the change, and ability to identify either or both of the burglars. Some 61% of participants did not notice the identity change. Rates of detection were significantly higher in participants in the intentional condition, who also recalled significantly more detail from the film. Awareness of change was also significantly related to content recall scores and accuracy of identification of both burglars. The results illustrate the interrelation between the eyewitness and change blindness literatures.     

Coerced Confessions,Judicial Instruction,and Mock Juror Verdicts1

The present research assessed whether judicial instruction can curb jurors' inappropriate use of coerced-confession evidence. In Experiment 1, subjects read an auto theft trial in which the defendant had confessed on his own initiative (no constraint), after an offer of leniency (positive constraint), or after a threat of punishment (negative constraint). Subjects then received an instruction that simply directed them to ignore a coerced confession (short form), another that additionally defined both positive and negative inducement as coercive and hence unreliable (long form), or no instruction at all. As previously reported (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1980), subjects fully discounted the negatively constrained confession but not the positively induced one which, although judged involuntary, produced a high percentage of guilty verdicts. Neither form of instruction significantly reduced this latter tendency. In Experiment 2, subjects read an assault case involving a voluntary or positively coerced confession and one of four types of instruction. The positive coercion bias was replicated. An instruction that stressed both the unreliability and unfairness of an induced confession decreased voluntariness judgments but failed to lower the conviction rate. The theoretical basis for and practical implications of this phenomenon are discussed, and future research directions are proposed.     

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.     

Juror Responses to Direct and Mediated Presentations of Expert Testimony1

One hundred twenty-one King County (Washington) jurors viewed one of four videotaped versions of medical testimony relevant to the determination of a claim for damages against an employer in an industrial accident case. Two versions presented the claimant's physician (direct testimony), and two presented an attorney reading the physician's testimony verbatim (mediated testimony). Two professional actors (one female, one male) portrayed the physician in one version and the attorney in the other. Videotape presentations were introduced by written material and followed by a questionnaire in which Ss answered a number of legal, attitudinal, and factual questions. Responses to direct testimony differed from those to mediated testimony on several dimensions: number of items listed as significant to the determination of a cash award, estimates of sufficiency of material presented to determine an award, estimates of physician's competence, estimates of confidence in ratings of physician's competence, and number of correct items in a factual retention test. Significant correlations were found between scores on some of these dimensions and number of dollars awarded as compensation. Differences between the actors produced no significant effects, nor were there any significant interactions. It is concluded that, ceteris paribus, direct testimony is to be preferred to mediated testimony.     

Witnesses and Their Testimony: Effects of Ordering on Juror Verdicts1

Thibaut and Walker's claim that criminal courtroom proceedings are subject to pervasive recency effects was experimentally investigated. Previous research on order effects in a legal setting is critically reviewed; it is argued that this research fails to provide adequate simulation of courtroom protocol. An experiment was designed to retain the structure of a criminal trial while manipulating witness and testimony order. In contrast to earlier research, primacy effects were found. The greatest number of guilty verdicts by simulated jurors occurred when the strongest “guilty” witnesses and “guilty” testimony by these witnesses came first. These results are discussed with respect to (a) witness and testimony order, (b) length of case, and (c) type of case used.     

The Effect of Defendant's Plea on Mock Juror Decisions

Abstract

The study examined the attributional and attractional effects of admission or denial of a mistake in interaction with the stimulus person's status, the seriousness of the consequences of the mistake, and the certainty of the evidence. The factorial design of the experiment was 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 (Status x Consequences x Evidence x Admission). Male undergraduate college students in Bombay (N = 480) read a passage about a mislabeling incident in a pharmaceutical concern and then rated the stimulus person on several variables. Admission of the mistake elicited the most favorable ratings. The no-statement condition received slightly more negative evaluations than the denial condition. Higher status led to greater responsibility attribution, but seriousness of consequences did not. The most liked stimulus person was the high-status person who admitted his mistake in the condition of serious consequences and ambiguous evidence.     

Mock Juror Judgment and the Insanity Plea: Effects of Incrimination and Sanity information1

Mock jurors were given information about a stabbing incident which varied in incrimination value (high or low) and a psychological profile of the perpetrator which varied in the degree of indicated insanity (high, medium, or low) in four replications of a 2 × 3 design. In one replication, the information was presented in the context of a sanity hearing where guilt was not an issue. In three other replications, the context was a criminal trial in which the defendant pleaded not guilty on the facts, not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI), or both. Judgments in the insanity plea replication were significantly affected by incrimination information even though sanity is legally the only issue. Insanity information predictably affected judgments in the sanity hearing but had only weak effects in the insanity plea context. It was concluded that the judgment dimension which equates insanity with not guilty results in a conflict which subjects resolved by viewing the dimension as more of a guilt dimension.     

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.     

The Influence of Eyewitness Nonidentifications on Mock-Jurors' Judgments of a Court Case1

Two experiments examined the effect of an eyewitness nonidentificution on mock-jurors' verdicts in robbery cases, as well as the effects of number of identifying eyewitnesses and status of the identifying witness (victim or bystander). Subjects read court case summaries that included variable eyewitness evidence and constant alibi, circumstantial, and character evidence. In Experiment 1, frequency of guilty verdicts was significantly less when an eyewitness testified in court that the defendant was not the perpetrator, even when this nonidentification opposed two positive identifications. In Experiment 2, a low guilty rate was again associated with the presence of a nonidentifier, but only when the nonidentifier actually testified in court and stipulated that the defendant is “not the man.” On the average, 70% of the jurors delivered guilty verdicts when both the victim and bystander gave identifying testimony, whereas 12.5% delivered guilty verdicts when the bystander gave opposing nonidentifying testimony. Guilty rates were unaffected by the identifying eyewitness' status and (in Experiment 2, but not Experiment 1) were higher when there were two (vs. one) identifying eyewitnesses.     

Effects of Testimonial Inconsistencies and Witness Group Identity on Mock‐Juror Judgments1

We examined the interaction of testimonial consistency and witness group identity on mock jurors' judgments of witness effectiveness, probability that the defendant committed the crime, and verdict. In a 3 × 2 (Witness Group Identity × Testimonial Consistency) between‐groups design, 180 mock jurors heard a trial of a person charged with assault. Although both variables affected judgments, group‐identity effects were weak when testimony was characterized by inconsistencies, and they were stronger when testimony was internally consistent but ambiguous. The judgment patterns were consistent with predictions from Chaiken, Liberman, and Eagly's (1989) heuristic‐systematic processing theory, suggesting that heuristic processing would bias systematic processing when the evidence was not decisive.     

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。     

Eyewitness Testimony: The Effects of Discussion on Recall Accuracy and Agreement

While some previous research has suggested that group discussion may facilitate eyewitness accuracy, other research has drawn attention to the potential dangers of such discussion. The present studies examine this controversy and the interaction between accuracy and agreement following group discussion. It was found that individuals tend to agree in their testimony following group discussion, and are liable to change their original replies to bring themselves into agreement with group leaders' recall. A second experiment focused upon the actual items which witnesses agreed on following discussion. Changing the mode of questioning from interrogative to narrative eliminated differences in magnitude of agreement between discussion and no-discussion groups. As narrative recall leads to reporting of "easy" items, it was suggested that only certain "difficult" items are susceptible to discussion effects. The need for caution regarding the reliance on testimony following witness discussion was stressed.     

Impact of Ethnicity,Gender, and Previous Experience on Juror Judgments in Sexual Harassment Cases1

To examine the influence of gender, having been the target of sexual harassment, and ethnicity on jury decisions, 215 respondents reviewed 17 sexual harassment cases ranging on a continuum from relatively innocent to severe. Respondents indicated their perception of the offensiveness of the cases as well as whether they would vote for the plaintiff or for the defendant. Jurors voting for the plaintiff also indicated whether monetary damages should be awarded. Results of the study indicate that gender and prior experience with sexual harassment affect the outcomes in sexual harassment cases when behaviors can be classified as ambiguous. Results were mixed for the influence of gender and having been sexually harassed for relatively innocent and severe cases. No ethnicity effects were found. A discussion of the legal implications of these findings is included.     

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.