Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions of eyewitness accuracy

This study examined whether showing jurors a video of the witness's initial attempts to describe and identify the perpetrator would facilitate jurors' ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses. Mock jurors observed a simulated trial in which the key witness testified under direct examination and cross‐examination. The jurors saw either the witness's testimony or the witness's testimony plus videotape footage of the earlier police interviews in which the witness described and attempted to identify the perpetrator. Results support the hypothesis: Jurors in the examination‐plus‐video condition discriminated between accurate and inaccurate witnesses better than jurors in the examination‐only condition. We discuss various mechanisms to explain the advantage provided by the video. It is recommended that police officers videotape the line‐up procedure and that jurors be shown this video at trial. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Post‐identification feedback,confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses

Eyewitness confidence and detailed memory reports are often considered reliable indicators of the credibility of the eyewitness testimony. This study investigated how feedback concerning the accuracy of a lineup identification influences witnesses' confidence in the accuracy of their identification decision and their judgements concerning the witnessing experience. Fifty‐seven children (11–12 years) and 55 adults (17–39 years) viewed a video of a robbery and attempted to identify the culprit from a photo lineup. The culprit was not present. Participants received confirming feedback, disconfirming feedback, or no feedback on the accuracy of their identification. The confidence judgements and recollections of witnessing conditions of both children and adults were influenced by confirming and in some instances, disconfirming feedback. These findings imply that confidence and memory reports are easily distorted by non‐specific feedback and investigators should be sensitive to this particularly when dealing with vulnerable witnesses such as children. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

The Cost of Detecting Deception: Judging Veracity Makes Eyewitnesses Remember a Suspect Less Accurately but With More Certainty

The current study extends previous research demonstrating the detrimental effects of divided attention during encoding on eyewitness memory. Previous data indicate that judging the veracity of a suspect causes witnesses to scrutinize him or her carefully and requires relatively high cognitive effort. We therefore hypothesized that performing this task while simultaneously observing the suspect should impair witnesses' memory for his or her appearance and message while ironically inflating their certainty and other testimony‐relevant judgments. Our results supported these predictions. Moreover, inducing witnesses to be suspicious about the suspect's truthfulness (Experiment 1) and motivating them to judge veracity as accurately as possible (Experiment 2) amplified the memory impairment effect and further increased several testimony‐relevant ratings. Additionally, compared with witnesses who incorrectly identified the suspect in a line‐up, those who made a correct decision expressed greater certainty about their line‐up accuracy and also provided higher ratings on some other testimony‐relevant measures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility

How much a person is affected by postidentification feedback is dependent on the credibility of the person giving the feedback. Seven hundred and ninety participants across three experiments viewed a crime video, made judgments from a line‐up, were provided with co‐witness and/or outcome feedback (from police officers [high credibility] or children [low credibility]), and answered testimony‐relevant questions (e.g. How good a view did you get of the person in the video?). The aim was to find out how high versus low credibility co‐witness feedback affects a witness' retrospective judgments (Experiment 1) as well as estimations of these co‐witnesses' judgments (Experiment 2). Experiment 1 showed that the feedback effect was only observed when the co‐witness responses were attributed to a high credibility source. Experiment 2 showed that high credibility co‐witnesses were estimated to score higher on the testimony‐relevant questions as compared to low credibility co‐witnesses. Experiment 3 showed that outcome feedback (e.g. ‘you identified the suspect’) produces stronger effects on testimony‐relevant questions than co‐witness feedback. The implications of these findings are that when postidentification feedback is present, it is important to determine the source of this feedback. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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 effects of state anxiety on the suggestibility and accuracy of child eyewitnesses

The negative effect of misleading information on memory is a well‐established fact in eyewitness testimony. However, individual differences have rarely been studied in this context, particularly in children. This paper is one of the first to explore whether objectively measured state anxiety levels have a moderating influence on suggestibility. A group of 83 9–10‐year‐old schoolchildren took part in the experiment. They were tested on their recall of details surrounding a minor car accident shown on video. No effects of state anxiety on accuracy were found. Clear misleading information effects were found, however (p < 0.001). Furthermore, both analysis of covariance and Pearson's correlation coefficients showed that higher anxiety levels were associated with a reduction in the number of misled responses given by the misinformed participants relative to low‐anxious participants (p < 0.05). The theoretical relevance of these findings are discussed in the light of processing efficiency theory and the ‘affect as information’ hypothesis. The practical implications for children as witnesses are also considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Can fabricated evidence induce false eyewitness testimony?

False information can influence people's beliefs and memories. But can fabricated evidence induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did? We examined whether exposure to a fabricated video could produce false eyewitness testimony. Subjects completed a gambling task alongside a confederate subject, and later we falsely told subjects that their partner had cheated on the task. Some subjects viewed a digitally manipulated video of their partner cheating; some were told that video evidence of the cheating exists; and others were not told anything about video evidence. Subjects were asked to sign a statement confirming that they witnessed the incident and that their corroboration could be used in disciplinary action against the accused. See‐video subjects were three times more likely to sign the statement than Told‐video and Control subjects. Fabricated evidence may, indeed, produce false eyewitness testimony; we discuss probable cognitive mechanisms. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Some experimental influences of lawyers' complicated questions on eyewitness confidence and accuracy

Eyewitness evidence and the confidence the eyewitness expresses in such evidence are crucial in many criminal trials. The present study is an examination of the influence of confusing questions often used by attorneys to examine witnesses in court. Participants viewed a videotaped incident and were questioned about the incident 1 week later. Half the participants were asked questions framed in a confusing form; the remaining half were asked the same questions in straightforward language. Confusing questions reduced the participant witnesses' accuracy and suppressed the confidence-accuracy relationships compared with the condition in which simple questions were asked. However, the number of absolutely sure responses was the same in both conditions, although these responses were almost always accurate in the simplified condition, whereas in the confusing question condition, accuracy was comparatively poor. This experiment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that lawyers ask witnesses simple, clear questions.     

A Lay Perspective on the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony1

To understand more about what laypeople think they “know” about eyewitness testimony, 276 jury-eligible university students were asked to indicate what factors they believe affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In contrast to the large proportion of eyewitness-memory research that concerns system variables, the lay respondents overwhelmingly generated factors related to estimator variables, while system-variable factors such as police questioning and identification procedures were rarely mentioned. Respondents also reported that their own common sense and everyday life experiences were their most important sources of information about the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Not only do these results clarify the need for further research on the lay perspective of eyewitness testimony, but they also provide some insight into the way in which many jurors might approach cases involving eyewitness evidence.     

Changed Responses Under Cross‐examination: The Role of Anxiety and Individual Differences in Child Witnesses

The present study explored whether levels of anxiety, and a range of individual differences measures (age, IQ and suggestibility), could predict performance during cross‐examination questioning. Eighty‐three children (aged 4–11 years) witnessed a staged event before being interviewed (3–6 days later) and cross‐examined (10 months later). Results demonstrated that cross‐examination induced a significant rise in anxiety levels. Further, recall of unchallenged details (based on children's initial testimony, which they reviewed prior to cross‐examination) and anxiety levels were the only significant predictors of cross‐examination performance. Further research is needed to explore the interrelationship between anxiety and other individual difference measures on cross‐examination performance, and to determine how to alleviate the anxiety of child witnesses (to enable them to achieve their best evidence in court). Preparation to ensure children understand the importance of attending to the recording of their original evidence may improve children's resilience under cross‐examination and reduce anxiety levels. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparing methods of encountering post‐event information: the power of co‐witness suggestion

The current study compared the effects of co‐witness information on memory with more widely studied methods of encountering post‐event information. Participants were shown a crime video and then exposed to both correct and incorrect post‐event information about the video through one of four methods: (1) leading questions, (2) media report, (3) indirect co‐witness information, or (4) co‐witness discussion. There was also a control condition in which participants did not receive any post‐event information. All participants were individually tested on their memories for the event 1 week later. Results suggest that co‐witness information had a particularly strong influence on eyewitness memory, whether encountered through co‐witness discussion or indirectly through a third party. That is, participants were more likely to report co‐witness information than post‐event information encountered through leading questions or a media report. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Repetition and Reconfiguration: Demand‐Based Confabulation in Initial Eyewitness Memory

Repeated recall, as a result of repeated questioning, is typical of situations involving eyewitness evidence. The present study addressed questions of eyewitness performance with reference to repeated questioning in an initial interview, in a format based on actual police procedures. This experiment focused on eyewitness accuracy, eyewitness confidence, and the addition of false details to eyewitness accounts. Ninety‐two adult respondents were asked to recall all the information they could from a single viewing of a scene depicting an assailant aiming a handgun at a victim. This initial question was followed by three additional questions, in which respondents were asked to report any additional details they could recall. On average, respondents provided several times as many correct as false details to the initial question. However, performance deteriorated significantly to the three subsequent questions; on average, across the three subsequent questions, witnesses recalled nearly as much false as accurate information. Witness confidence was positively related to amount of accurate information recalled. However, confidence was also positively related to the number of instances of erroneous recall. These results indicate that reconfigurative dynamics begin to operate, producing confabulated responses in response to questioning demands, as early as the initial interview. This work may also help to clarify the critical relationship between accuracy and confidence in eyewitness reportage, at least within the framework reflected by the present research. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.