Saying Versus judging: Assessing knowledge of eyewitness memory

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1245-1264

  Alonzo, Jill D ^a   Lane, Sean M ^b  

^a American Airlines   (United States)

^b LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; MEMORY; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; STUDENT; WITNESS;

EID: 78649544554     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1626     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Benton, T. P., McDonnell, S., Ross, D., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, E. (2007). Has eyewitness testimony research penetrated the American legal system? A synthesis of case history, juror knowledge, and expert testimony. In D. W. Ross, R. C. L. Lindsay, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 2: Memory for people (pp. 453-500). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
2. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-130.
3. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial (NCJ No. 161258). Alexandria, VA: National Institute of Justice.
4. Cooke, R., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behavior relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 159-186.
5. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 5 9 U.S. 579, 125 L.Ed.2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
7. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
8. Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3, 338-361.
9. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1996). Eyewitness memory research: Probative v. prejudicial value. Expert Evidence, 5, 2-28.
10. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight * foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 288-299.
11. Gentner, D., Ratterman, M. J., & Forbus, K. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 524-575.
12. Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. New York: Little, Brown & Company.
13. 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.
14. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The 'general acceptance' of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
15. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the 'general acceptance' of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
16. Lane, S. M., & Groft, S. (2009). What judges know about what jurors know: Consistency of beliefs about eyewitness memory. Manuscript in preparation.
17. Lane, S., Groft, S., Roussel, C., & Alonzo, J. (March, 2007). Beliefs about eyewitness memory: Differences among judges, jurors, and jury-eligible college students. Poster presented at 'Off the Witness Stand: Using Psychology in the Practice of Justice' conference, John Jay School of Criminal Justice, New York, NY.
18. Lane, S. M., Mathews, R. C., Sallas, B., Prattini, B., & Sun, R. (2008). Facilitating interactions of model and experience-based processes: Implications for type and flexibility of representation. Memory & Cognition, 36, 157-169.
19. LaPiere, R. T. (1934). Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 13, 230-237.
20. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
21. Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215-218.
22. McCloskey, M., Camarraza, A., & Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces. Science, 210, 1139.
23. McCloskey, M., Egeth, H., & McKenna, J. (1986). The experimental psychologist in court: The ethics of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1-13.
24. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., & Howerter, A. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to 'frontal lobe' tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
25. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
26. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153.
27. Nunes, T. N., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1993). Street Mathematics and School Mathematics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. People v. McDonald. 37 Cal.3d 351 208 Cal. Rptr. 236 (California Supreme Court 1984).
29. Petty, R. E. & Krosnick J. A. (Eds.), (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Read, J. D., & Desmarais, S. L. (2009). Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 301-326.
31. Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Random House.
33. Schmechel, R. S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Beyond the ken? Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46, 177-214.
34. Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: Assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin, & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (2001). The construction of attitudes. In A. Tesser, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Intraindividual processes (Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 436-457). Oxford: Blackwell.
36. Seltzer, R., Lopes, G. M., & Venuti, M. (1990). Juror ability to recognize the limitations of eyewitness identifications. Forensic Reports, 3, 121-137.
37. Technical Working Group For Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement (NCJ No. 178240). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
38. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
39. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). 'Good, you identified the suspect:' Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
40. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness identification. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
41. Yarmey, A. D. (2001). Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Canadian Psychology, 42, 92-100.