A Lay Perspective on the Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony¹

Abstract

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.

The emotional witness effect: story content, emotional valence and credibility of a male suspect

“…When asked whether the manner in which the defendant gave his statement or the factual content of the story most strongly affected the ratings of credibility, participants reported that content contributed most. This is consistent with the results of Shaw, McClure, and Garcia (1999) who observed a discrepancy between information actually used and peoples beliefs about information used when judging credibility.…”

A Teaching Aid for Improving Jurors' Assessments of Eyewitness Accuracy

“…For instance, Shaw, Garcia, and McClure (1999) had participants indicate in an open-ended format what factors they believe affect eyewitness accuracy. Participants primarily listed estimator variables such as lighting, crime duration, and the eyewitness's view (Wells, 1978).…”

Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Evidence: In Search of Common Sense

“…The commonly asserted assumption by judges that eyewitness memory is a matter of common sense contradicts research findings demonstrating that potential jurors (Cutler & Penrod, 1995;Cutler, Penrod, & Dexter, 1990;Kassin & Barndollar, 1992;Shaw et al, 1999) and legal professionals (Granhag et al, 2005;Wise & Safer, 2004) are typically rather limited in their understanding of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy. Therefore, in an attempt to assess the knowledge base of judges and jurors within the same population, our first experiment assessed judges' knowledge regarding eyewitness testimony.…”

“…However, the findings of mock-juror surveys are similar to surveys of legal professionals, as respondents typically demonstrate an understanding of eyewitness testimony that is at odds with research findings (Benton et al, 2006;Brigham & Wolfskeil, 1983;Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982;McConkey & Roche, 1989;Noon & Hollin, 1987). Mock jurors tend to be insensitive to biased procedures used by law enforcement, such as poorly constructed line-ups, misleading feedback or biased instructions (Shaw, Garcia, & McClure, 1999). Potential jurors also find it difficult to distinguish between accurate and inaccurate witnesses (e.g.…”

“…For example, Shaw et al (1999) reported that while jury-eligible participants were aware of factors such as length of exposure to the perpetrator, age of witness and delay between encountering the crime and making an identification, they were unaware of how the different test procedures and interview tactics of the police can influence the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. However, having knowledge of the right response and applying that knowledge appropriately could be conceptualized as rather different tasks.…”