A comparison of what U.S. judges and students know and believe about eyewitness testimony

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 40, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1400-1422

  Wise, Richard A ^a   Safer, Martin A ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA   (United States)

^b CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954633934     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00623.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Alicke M D, Klotz M L, Breitenbecher D L, Yurak T J, Vredenburg D S. Personal contact, individuation, and the better-than-average effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995, 68:804-825.
2. Benton T R, Ross D F, Bradshaw E, Thomas W N, Bradshaw G S. Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2006, 20:115-129.
3. Borchard E M. Convicting the innocent: Sixty-five actual errors of criminal justice 1932, Garden City, NY, Doubleday
4. Brigham J C, Wasserman A W, Meissner C A. Disputed eyewitness identification evidence: Important legal and scientific issues. Court Review 1999, 36:12-25.
5. Cherry K E, Brigman S, Hawley K S, Reese C M. The Knowledge of Memory Aging Questionnaire: Effects of adding a " don't know" response option. Educational Gerontology 2003, 29:427-446.
6. Courtenay B C, Weidemann C. The effects of a " don't know" response on Palmore's Facts on Aging Quizzes. Gerontologist 1985, 25:177-181.
7. Cutler B L, Penrod S D. Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law 1995, New York, Cambridge University Press
8. Dillman D A. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method 2000, 2nd, ed., New York, Wiley
9. Dripps D A. Miscarriages of justice and the constitution. Buffalo Criminal Law Review 1999, 2:635-680.
10. Ebel R L, Frisbie D A. Essentials of educational measurement 1986, 4th, ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall
11. Fisher R P, Geiselman R E. Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview 1992, Springfield, IL, Thomas
12. Gilovich T. How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life 1991, New York, Free Press
13. Huff C R. Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy 1987, 4:99-115.
14. Kassin S M, Barndollar K A. The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1992, 22:1241-1249.
15. Kassin S M, Tubb V A, Hosch H M, Memon A. On the " general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist 2001, 56:405-416.
16. Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 77:1121-1134.
17. Lindsay R C, Wells G L, O'Connor F J. Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior 1989, 13:333-339.
18. Lindsay R C, Wells G L, Rumpel C M. Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology 1981, 66:79-89.
19. Magnussen S, Melinder A, Stridbeck U, Raja A. Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors, and the general public. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2010, 24:122-133.
20. Magnussen S, Wise R A, Raja A Q, Safer M A, Pawlenko N, Stridbeck U. What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and U.S. judges. Psychology, Crime, and Law 2008, 14:177-188.
21. McCullough M L. " Do not discount lay opinion": Comment. American Psychologist 2002, 57:376-377.
22. O'Hagan C J. When seeing is not believing: The case for eyewitness expert testimony. Georgetown Law Journal 1993, 81:741-772.
23. Pennington H R, Pachana N A, Coyle S L. Use of the Facts on Aging Quiz in New Zealand: Validation of questions, performance of a student sample, and effects of a don't know option. Educational Gerontology 2001, 27:409-416.
24. Penrod S D, Cutler BL. Preventing mistaken convictions in eyewitness identification trials: The case against traditional safeguards. Psychology and law: The state of the discipline 1999, 89-118. Roesch R, Hart S DOgloff J R P. Eds.., New York, Kluwer Academic
25. Rattner A. Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior 1988, 12:283-293.
26. Read J D, Desmarais S L. Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2009, 23:301-326.
27. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J. Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted 2000, New York, Doubleday
28. Schmechel R S, O'Toole T P, Easterly C, Loftus E F. Beyond the ken? Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics 2006, 46:177-214.
29. Shapiro P N, Penrod S. Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin 1986, 100:139-156.
30. Steblay N, Dysart J, Fulero S. Eyewitness accuracy rates in police show-up and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior 2003, 27:523-540.
31. Wells G L, Leippe M R. How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology 1981, 66:682-687.
32. Wells G L, Malpass R S, Lindsay R C L, Fisher R P, Turtle J W, Fulero S M. From lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist 2000, 55:581-598.
33. Wells G L, Memon A, Penrod S D. Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 2006, 7:43-75.
34. Wells G L, Small M, Penrod S, Malpass R S, Fulero S M, Brimacombe C A E. Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior 1998, 22:603-647.
35. Wise R A, Dauphinais K A, Safer M A. A tripartite solution to eyewitness error. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 2007, 97:807-872.
36. Wise R A, Pawlenko N B, Safer M A, Meyer D. What U.S. prosecutors and defense attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2009, 23:1266-1281.
37. Wise R A, Safer M A. What U.S. judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2004, 18:427-443.