Saying Versus judging: Assessing knowledge of eyewitness memory

Abstract

Determining the nature of jurors' knowledge about factors influencing eyewitness memory is critical for judges' decisions to admit expert testimony. Past empirical research has primarily assessed such knowledge using responses to survey questions. Yet, research from a variety of fields suggests that expressed beliefs may over-or under-estimate the ability of respondents to act appropriately when faced with a situation where such knowledge is relevant. Participants in this study evaluated the accuracy of eyewitnesses depicted in brief trial transcripts and answered survey questions to assess their beliefs regarding the same eyewitness memory issues. Results revealed that participants' performance on the transcripts did not correlate with their survey responses for most issues. Our findings highlight some potential strengths and weaknesses of survey measures of knowledge about eyewitness memory, and suggest the need for more diverse research investigating people's understanding and use of such knowledge.

Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Evidence: In Search of Common Sense

“…The results of the current study certainly support such an argument. These findings are also consistent with those reported by Alonzo and Lane (2010), who examined the relationship between expressed beliefs regarding eyewitness factors and the ability to use this knowledge when evaluating a witness. Alonzo and Lane (2010) found that survey responses did not predict subsequent evaluations of eyewitness evidence.…”

“…These findings are also consistent with those reported by Alonzo and Lane (2010), who examined the relationship between expressed beliefs regarding eyewitness factors and the ability to use this knowledge when evaluating a witness. Alonzo and Lane (2010) found that survey responses did not predict subsequent evaluations of eyewitness evidence. Therefore, our conclusion is also consistent with previous arguments that the use of questionnaires might overestimate the extent to which potential jurors will apply their knowledge of the vulnerabilities of eyewitness testimony (e.g.…”

“…Therefore, our conclusion is also consistent with previous arguments that the use of questionnaires might overestimate the extent to which potential jurors will apply their knowledge of the vulnerabilities of eyewitness testimony (e.g. Alonzo & Lane, 2010;Cutler, Penrod, & Stuve, 1988;Read & Desmarais, 2009b;Laub & Bornstein, 2008).…”

The effect of victim intoxication and crime type on mock jury decision-making

“……”

The use of demeanour to assess the credibility of child victims in sexual interference trials

“…These are just a few of many examples. The variety of words judges use, like the fact that the influence of nonverbal behaviour often happens outside of conscious awareness (Patterson, 2019; see also Alonzo & Lane, 2010) and that unconscious bias can influence interactions with witnesses, including child victims (e.g. Conte & Simon, 2020; Everson & Sandoval, 2011; Lacey & Nunkoosing, 2022), suggests that the impact of demeanour in credibility assessment is much greater than previously documented.…”