The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts.

Kassin, Saul M.; Ellsworth, Phoebe C.; Smith, Vicki L.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.44.8.1089

Cited by 211 publications

(262 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

247

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, as the majority opinion in Daubert makes clear, trial judges may still consider opinions within the community of experts in determining the admissibility of expert testimony ("general acceptance can yet have a bearing on the inquiry"; Daubert, 1993, p. 2797). Thus, as Leippe (1995) noted, Kassin et al's (1989) survey can have an important bearing on the extent to which different propositions about eyewitness testimony, on an item-by-item basis, are deemed reliable enough to be presented at trial. In Daubert, the U.S. Supreme Court majority asserted with confidence "that federal judges possess the capacity to undertake this review" (p. 2796).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The time has come for Kassin et al's (1989) survey of experts to be updated. Since its publication, there has been a surge of new and important research developments in the area (for reviews, see Ross, Read, & Toglia, 1994;Sporer, Malpass, & Koehnnken, 1996;Thompson et al, 1998;Wells, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess the extent to which there is "general acceptance" of various eyewitness phenomena within the scientific community (a criterion for the admissibility of scientific evidence, initially enunciated in Frye v. United States, 1923), Kassin, Ellsworth, and Smith (1989) surveyed 63 eyewitness experts for their views on the reliability of 19 propositions. Their survey revealed that whereas certain research findings were judged to be reliable by most experts (e.g., the effects of exposure time, lineup instructions, the wording of questions, preevent expectations, postevent information, and the accuracy-confidence correlation), others did not elicit high levels of consensus (e.g., the effects of stress, event violence, gender, weapon focus, hypnotic retrieval techniques, and training in eyewitness observation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Kassin¹,

Tubb²,

Hosch³

et al. 2001

American Psychologist

Self Cite

323

412

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show 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

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Kassin¹,

Tubb²,

Hosch³

et al. 2001

American Psychologist

Self Cite

323

412

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research in the domains of eyewitness memory (Christianson, 1992), "flashbulb memories" (Brown & Kulik, 1977;Conway, 1995) and memory for traumatic personal events (Christianson & Safer, 1996;Schooler & Eich, 2000) shows that certain types of emotionally arousing events can leave vivid and enduring memories. On the other hand, emotional arousal can also impair eyewitness memory (Kassin, Ellsworth & Smith, 1989), personally traumatic events can be completely forgotten (see Schooler & Eich, 2000) and vividly recalled flashbulb memories can acquire many reconstruction errors over time (Neisser & Harsch, 1992;see Conway, 1995 for a review).…”

Section: Emotion and Autobiographical Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Regret as autobiographical memory

Davison

Feeney

2008

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.

show abstract

Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods

Dekle

Beal

Elliott

et al. 1996

Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of this study was to compare children's and adults eyewitness identification accuracy when presented with an array of possible suspects (‘lineup’) versus one suspect (‘showup’). Kindergarten children and adults were shown a slide show of a staged theft and subsequently asked whether, of the photo or photos shown them, the perpetrator was present or not. Children were more likely than adults to identify the perpetrator correctly when that suspect was present in the lineup or showup. Children were also more likely than adults to make an incorrect identification of another person when the perpetrator's photo was not present in the lineup or showup. Because false positive identification errors are more difficult to detect with the showup than the lineup, use of the showup may be less appropriate with child witnesses than with adults due to children's greater tendency to make positive identifications.

show abstract

The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts.

Cited by 211 publications

References 33 publications

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

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

Regret as autobiographical memory

Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About