Limitations of Expert Psychology Testimony on Eyewitness Identification

Flowe, Heather D.; Finklea, Kristin M.; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.009

Cited by 22 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This problem has raised a heated discussion, because in everyday life and in the context of forensic testimony, the information reported by eyewitness is rarely very peripheral and trivial. As in laboratory experiments, the critical items are usually peripheral and not very visible; therefore, a question about the generalizability of the research on the misinformation effect and even of the general laboratory research on eyewitness testimony arises (see Flowe, Finklea, & Ebbesen, 2009). In the context of the research presented in this article, the distinctiveness of the critical item is important because it may impact discrepancy detection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “memory” misinformation effect may not be caused by memory failures: Exploring memory states of misinformed subjects

Polczyk¹

2017

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The “memory” misinformation effect may not be caused by memory failures: Exploring memory states of misinformed subjects

Polczyk¹

2017

Polish Psychological Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some argue that predictions of individual offending based on group tendencies are highly unreliable (Cooke & Michie, 2010). Questions also have been raised about whether empirical research on eyewitness identification (Flowe, Finklea, & Ebbesen, 2009) and false confessions (Perez, 2010), most of which relies on laboratory simulations, generalizes to actual cases.…”

Section: Is Expert Testimony On Psychological Topics Appropriate?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert Psychological Testimony

Cutler

2011

Curr Dir Psychol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists serve as expert witnesses in criminal and civil cases and testify about a wide range of clinical, cognitive, developmental, industrial-organizational, biological, and social psychological topics. We review the topics about which psychologists offer testimony, the rules governing the admissibility of expert testimony, and contemporary research on expert testimony. With respect to the latter, we review research concerning the need for, appropriateness of, and effect of expert testimony. We discuss research pertaining to admissibility issues, including the effect of changes in admissibility criteria on admissibility decisions and judge and juror sensitivity to the quality of scientific psychological research. Because judges and jurors lack sensitivity to variations in expert evidence quality and common safeguards do not appear to increase sensitivity to research flaws, additional research is needed to identify methods of assisting fact finders who must evaluate expert testimony.

show abstract

“…Results from laboratory studies often do not translate effectively to natural conditions (are not “externally valid”: Brænd, Klovning, & Straand, 2017; Flowe, Finklea, & Ebbesen, 2009; Hansen & Jones, 2017). In ecological research, laboratory studies often provide straightforward results with high effect sizes, whereas attempts to repeat those studies at a larger scale in the natural environment are weakened by confounding variables such as fluctuations in biotic and abiotic conditions, genetic diversity among the study organisms, and interactions from other taxa that are pathogens, parasites, predators, or competitors of the main study species (Diamond, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field trials of chemical suppression of embryonic cane toads (Rhinella marina) by older conspecifics

McCann

Crossland

Greenlees

et al. 2020

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory experiments have shown that the viability of embryos of the invasive cane toad (Rhinella marina) can be reduced by exposure to chemical cues from older conspecific larvae. These effects (very strong in laboratory trials) may offer an exciting new approach to controlling this problematic invasive species in Australia. However, the degree to which the method works in natural environments has yet to be assessed. Our experiments in the laboratory and in seminatural outdoor waterbodies show that chemical cues from tadpoles do indeed suppress the growth, development, and survival of conspecific larvae that are exposed as embryos and do so in a dose‐dependent manner; higher tadpole densities cause greater suppression of embryos. In seminatural outdoor waterbodies, suppressor‐exposed tadpoles were less than half as likely to survive to metamorphosis as were controls, and were much smaller when they did so and hence, less likely to survive the metamorph stage. Additionally, female cane toads were less likely to oviposit in a waterbody containing free‐ranging (but not cage‐enclosed) tadpoles, suggesting that the presence of tadpoles (rather than the chemical cues they produce) may discourage oviposition. Broadly, our results suggest that the suppression effect documented in laboratory studies does indeed occur in the field also, and hence that we may be able to translate that approach to develop new and more effective ways to reduce rates of recruitment of peri‐urban populations of cane toads in their invasive range.

show abstract

Limitations of Expert Psychology Testimony on Eyewitness Identification

Cited by 22 publications

References 27 publications

The “memory” misinformation effect may not be caused by memory failures: Exploring memory states of misinformed subjects

The “memory” misinformation effect may not be caused by memory failures: Exploring memory states of misinformed subjects

Expert Psychological Testimony

Field trials of chemical suppression of embryonic cane toads (Rhinella marina) by older conspecifics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About