Some experimental influences of lawyers' complicated questions on eyewitness confidence and accuracy

Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied

Volumn 134, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 129-139

  Kebbell, Mark R ^a   Giles, David C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONFUSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECALL; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STUDENT;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CONFUSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; SEMANTICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STUDENTS;

EID: 0034152110     PISSN: 00223980     EISSN: 19401019     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00223980009600855     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brennan, M. (1995). The discourse of denial: Cross-examining child victim witnesses. Special issue: Laying down the law: Discourse analysis of legal institutions. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 71-91.
2. Brennan, M., & Brennan, R, E. (1988). Strange language: Child victims under cmss-examination (3rd ed.). Wagga Wagga, NSW: Charles Stuart University-Riverina.
3. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
4. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
5. Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14, 445-564.
6. Danet, B., & Bogoch, B. (1980). Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society, 7, 36-60.
7. Devlin, P. (1979). The judge. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
8. Evans, K. (1995). Advocacy in court: A beginner's guide (2nd ed.). London: Blackstone.
9. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
10. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-228.
11. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12. Kebbell, M. R., & Deprez, S. (1998). Lawyers' questions and witnesses’ answers in court: An evaluation. Paper presented to the International Congress of Applied Psychology, San Francisco.
13. Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perception of eyewitness factors in forensic investigations: A survey. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 323-330.
14. Kebbell, M. R., Wagstaff, G. F., & Covey, J. A. (1996). The influence of item difficulty on the relationship between eyewitness confidence and accuracy. British Journal of Psychology. 87, 653-662.
15. Kranat, V. K., & Westcott, H. L. (1994). Under fire: Lawyers questioning children in criminal courts. Expert Evidence, 3, 16-24.
16. Leippe, M. R. (1980). Effects of integrative and memorial processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 261-274.
17. Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults’ and children’s memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.
18. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O’Conner, F. J. (1989). Mock juror belief or accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333-339.
19. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560-572.
20. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perserverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714-723.
21. Murphy, P. (1994). Evidence and advocacy (4th ed.). London: Blackstone.
22. Nelson, T. O. (1984). A comparison of current measures of the accuracy of feeling of knowing predictions. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 109-133.
23. Perry, N. W., McAuliff, B. D., Tam, P., Claycomb, L., Dostal, C., & Flanagan, C. (1995). When lawyers question children. Is justice served? Law and Human Behavior, 19, 609-629.
24. Rand Corporation. (1975). The criminal investigation process. Rand Corporation Technical Report Rim, 1-3, Santa Monica, CA.
25. Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Herndon, F. (1997). Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness memory accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 416-425.
26. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, J. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
27. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
28. Westcott, H. L. (1995). Children’s experiences of being examined and cross-examined: The opportunity to be heard? Expert Evidence, 4, 13-19.