Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey

Abstract

One of the recent concerns in the study of eyewitness memory is how well lay knowledge, i.e. 'common sense', matches the findings of empirical research. A number of American and Canadian studies, some using questionnaire methodology, have found limitations in lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour. Further studies have extended this general finding beyond the lay public-who are prospective jurors-to legal professionals such as lawyers and policemen. The present study utilized the Knowledge of Eyewitness Behaviour Questionnaire (KEBQ), an inventory used in previous studies, to replicate the North American studies with a British sample of students, including law students, and the general public. The results showed a great similarity between the North American and British samples' knowledge of eyewitness behaviour. A significant number of correct responses were made to eight of the 14 KEBQ items, with a significant number of incorrect responses to the remainder. It was also found that law students were no more knowledgeable than other subjects; that knowledge did not vary with age; and that previous experience as an eyewitness was not related to knowledge of eyewitness behaviour. In responding to some of the criticisms of questionnaire studies it is argued that the evidence is mounting in favour of the need for a recognized system to make jurors aware of the factors known to influence eyewitness testimony.The study of eyewitness memory, popular at the beginning of the century (Whipple, 1918), has enjoyed renewed interest over the past decade. The steady accumulation of empirical knowledge has been collected in several publications on the topic (Clifford ). With this increased understanding of eyewitness memory, an issue of recent concern in some North American studies is how well lay knowledge matches empirical research. The present study seeks to extend this line of investigation to a British sample.Two lay populations have been seen as particularly important: the general public as prospective witness and jurors; and lawyers and police as professionals involved in the use of eyewitness testimony by the legal system. A number of studies have tested the knowledge of both groups using a variety of methods. Wells (1984a) describes four methodologies to assess knowledge of accuracy of eyewitness memory: questionnaire studies, prediction studies, the use of written or videotaped trials, and the use of staged events. Whilst there are shortcomings with all the methodologies, the questionnaire *Addressee for reprints. 144E. Noon and C. R. Hollin method offers perhaps the most parsimonious, and no less reliable, means of data collection. Loftus (1979) gave 500 students at the University of Washington a five-item questionnaire to test their knowledge of eyewitness memory. For each item a choice of responses was available: for example there were four possible responses to the question 'When a person is experiencing stress as the victim of a crime, he will have:'. The correct response, made by 67 per cent of subjects, is 'Reduc...

The thin blue line-up: Comparing eyewitness performance by police and civilians.

“…Based on some early research findings on observation skills (Ainsworth, 1981; Tickner & Poulton, 1975) and face recognition abilities (Malpass, 1981;Woodhead et al, 1979), authors in the 1980s asserted that the expert opinion should be that police officers are no better as eyewitnesses than civilians (e.g., Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982; Kassin, Ellsworth, & Smith, 1989;Noon & Hollin, 1987). Despite the fact that more recent evidence has revealed that police officers may actually provide superior incident reports, authors in recent years have simply adopted that assertion from the 1980s (see e.g., Benton et al, 2006; Houston, Hope, Memon, & Read, 2013; Kassin, Tubb, Hosch, & Memon, 2001;Odinot et al, 2015).…”

“…In The Netherlands, a distinction between police officers and civilians has even been incorporated in the law: a single statement by a civilian eyewitness is not sufficient to convict, but a single statement by a police officer is. 1 Many people, including jurors and judges, believe that police officers are better eyewitnesses than civilians (e.g., Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006;Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982;Noon & Hollin, 1987;Yarmey, 1986;Yarmey & Jones, 1983).…”

Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Evidence: In Search of Common Sense

“…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).…”

“…Simons and Chabris (2012) found that their respondents claimed these memory myths were truths over 50% of the time. Furthermore, previous experience as a witness does not appear to be related to knowledge of eyewitness issues (Noon & Hollin, 1987). Desmarais and Read (2011) conducted a meta-analysis of 23 experiments that documented the knowledge of the general public about factors that may affect the reliability of eyewitness testimony.…”

“…For instance, some surveys have used MC format questions to evaluate juror knowledge (e.g. Deffenbacher & Loftus, 1982;Noon & Hollin, 1987), effectively relying upon the participants to recognize the correct answer. Others have used a more evaluative response format of Likert-type scales with agree-disagree anchors (Kassin & Barndollar, 1992).…”