Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, Jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 89, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 524-541

  Leippe, Michael R ^a   Eisenstadt, Donna ^a   Rauch, Shannon M ^a   Seib, Hope M ^a  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MEMORY; RANDOMIZATION;

ADULT; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MEMORY; RANDOM ALLOCATION; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 2942676921     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.524     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-92.
2. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
3. Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983), The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19-30.
4. Brigham, J. C., Wasserman, A. W., & Meissner, C. A. (1999). Disputed eyewitness identification evidence: Important legal and scientific issues. Court Review, 36, 12-25.
5. Buckhout, R. (1974, December). Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 231(6), 23-31.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
9. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Morris, K. J. (1983). Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 805-818.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
12. Cooper, J., & Hall, J. (2000). Reactions of mock-jurors to testimony of a court-appointed expert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 719-729.
13. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197-1207.
14. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-332.
15. Ellsworth, P. C. (1993). Some steps between attitudes and verdicts. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 42-64). New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general vs. specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-228.
17. Friedman, H. (1968). Magnitude of experimental effect and a table for its rapid estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 245-251.
18. Goldstein, A. G., Chance, J. E., & Schneller, G. R. (1989). Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 71-74.
19. Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instructions on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252-276.
20. Haber, R. N., & Haber, L. (2001, November). A meta-analysis of research on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomics Society, Orlando, FL.
21. Hastie, R. (1993a). Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Hastie, R. (1993b). Algebraic models of juror decision processes. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 84-115). New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., Victor, E., Bourgeois, M. J., & ForsterLee, M. J. (2001). The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 641-652.
24. Kaplan, M. F., & Kemmerick, G. D. (1974). Juror judgment as information integration: Combining evidential and nonevidential information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 493-499.
25. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1241-1249.
26. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. Z., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
27. Kassin, S. M., Reddy, M. E., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). Juror interpretations of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, presentation order, and persuasion. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 25-42.
28. Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (Eds.). (1982). The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
29. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
30. Leippe, M. R. (1980). Effects of integrative memorial and cognitive processes on the correspondence of eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 261-274.
31. Leippe, M. R. (1994). The appraisal of eyewitness testimony. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 385-417). New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
33. Leippe, M. R., Seib, H. M., Eisenstadt, D., & Alia-Klein, N. (1998, August). Effects of eyewitness expert testimony in strong and weak cases. Paper presented at the 106th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
34. Leippe, M. R., Wells, G. L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1978). Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 345-351.
35. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors' verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness memory: Current trends and developments (pp. 362-384). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Lindsay, R. C. L., MacDonald, P., & McGarry, S. (1990). Perspectives on the role of the expert witness. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 8, 457-464.
37. Loftus, E. F. (1974, December). The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 5(7), 116-119.
38. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9-15.
39. Loftus, E. F. (1983). Silence is not golden. American Psychologist, 38, 564-572.
40. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207-229.
41. MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influences in mock jury deliberations: Jurors' bias toward leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
42. Moore, P. J., & Gump, B. B. (1995). Information integration in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2158-2179.
43. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
44. Nunez, N., McCoy, M. L., Clark, H. L., & Shaw, L. A. (1999). The testimony of elderly victim/witnesses and their impact on juror decisions: The importance of examining multiple stereotypes. Law and human Behavior, 23, 413-423.
45. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1992). Explaining the evidence: Tests of the story model for juror decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 189-206.
46. Petty, R. E., Tormala, Z. L., Hawkins, C., & Wegener, D. T. (2001). Motivation to think and order effects in persuasion: The moderating role of chunking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 332-344.
47. Saunders, D. M., Vidmar, N., & Hewitt, E. C. (1983). Eyewitness testimony and the discrediting effect. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 57-78). Chichester, England: Wiley.
48. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49. Schuller, R. A., & Cripps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 17-31.
50. Schum, D. A. (1993). Argument structure and evidence evaluation. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 175-191). New York: Cambridge University Press.
51. Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 257-268.
52. Snyder, M., & Uranowitz, S. W. (1978). Reconstructing the past: Some cognitive consequences of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 941-950.
53. Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221-256). New York: Academic Press.
54. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D. C. Cir. 1972).
55. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-208). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
56. Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony. In G. L. Wells & E. L. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256-272). New York: Cambridge University Press.
57. Wells, G. L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony; Empirical and conceptual analysis of effects. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 83-95.
58. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275-285.
59. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
60. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1983). What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 347-362.
61. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony; Psychological perspectives (pp. 155-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62. Wells, G. L., & Wright, E. F. (1983). Unpublished raw data.
63. Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387-409.
64. Woocher, F. D. (1977). Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Stanford Law Review, 29, 969-1030.