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

Abstract

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 Effects of Alcohol Intoxication on Accuracy and the Confidence–Accuracy Relationship in Photographic Simultaneous Line‐ups

“…Alcohol would seem to be an especially pertinent issue to consider when assessing whether a witness' identification is likely to be accurate. The relevance of the issue is reflected in a survey of psychology experts, which found that 90% of respondents agreed that alcohol impairs memory performance (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001). Further, 61% of respondents on this survey indicated that they would testify about it, 79% indicated there was a sufficient research basis, and 95% indicated that the phenomenon was common sense (Kassin et al, 2001).…”

“…The relevance of the issue is reflected in a survey of psychology experts, which found that 90% of respondents agreed that alcohol impairs memory performance (Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001). Further, 61% of respondents on this survey indicated that they would testify about it, 79% indicated there was a sufficient research basis, and 95% indicated that the phenomenon was common sense (Kassin et al, 2001). Mock jurors have also been shown to perceive intoxicated victims and bystanders as being cognitively impaired and less able to make accurate identifications when evaluating summaries of sexual battery and aggravated sexual assault cases (Evans & Schreiber Compo, 2010).…”

Mugshot Exposure Effects: Retroactive Interference, Mugshot Commitment, Source Confusion, and Unconscious Transference.

“…Even though Wise and Safer's (2004) survey did not ascertain what their sam ple of US judges believed to be true with respect to the phenomenon of unconscious transference, Kassin et al (2001) did fi nd that just 60% of experts believed uncon scious transference to be generally reliable or very reliable. We should note that Kassin et al defi ned unconscious transference for their sample of experts as, "Eye witnesses sometimes identify as a culprit someone they have seen in another situa tion or context" (p. 408).…”

Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending?

“…The majority of the eyewitness research community certainly believes that unconscious transference errors can occur (Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989;Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001), although to date, there have been no studies exploring such errors in older adults. We will begin by outlining two theoretical accounts of unconscious transference, before reviewing the likely impact of aging, which is the focus of the present work.…”