Does Trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 673-690

  Pezdek, Kathy ^a   Avila Mora, Elizabeth ^a   Sperry, Kathryn ^a  

^a CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; VIDEORECORDING; WITNESS;

EID: 78650496084     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1578     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Blonstein, R., & Geiselman, R. E. (1990). Effects of witnessing conditions and expert witness testimony on credibility of an eyewitness. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 8, 11-19.
2. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 33, 75-91.
3. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605-614.
4. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241-256.
5. Chaiken, S., Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (1996). Principles of persuasion. In E. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 702-742). New York: Guilford Press.
6. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445-459.
7. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215-225.
8. 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.
9. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569-576.
10. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042-1054.
11. Diamond, S. S. (Ed.) (1979). Simulation research and the law [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior, 3(1/2).
12. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
14. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I., Athaide-Victor, E., & Brown, N. (2000). The bottom line: The effect of written expert witness statements on juror verdicts and information processing. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 259-270.
15. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 187-296.
16. Huff, C. R. (1987). Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice. Research in social problems and public policy, 4, 99-115.
17. Huff, R., Rattner, A., & Saragin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
19. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Connor, F. (1989). Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333-340.
20. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9-15.
21. Longan, P. E. (1995). Civil trial reform and the appearance of fairness. Marquette Law Review, 79, 295-326.
22. 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.
23. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
24. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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. O'Toole, T., Cox, T. A., Easterly, C. F., & Schmechel, R. S. (April 2005). District of Columbia Public Defender Survey. The Champion, 20-32.
27. Penrod, S. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2006). Generalizing eyewitness reliability research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol. II): Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. (1999). Preventing mistaken convictions in eyewitness identification trials. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 89-118). New York: Kluwer Academic.
29. Pezdek, K. (2007). Expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 99-117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Pezdek, K., Lehrer, A., & Simon, S. (1984). The relationship between reading and cognitive processing of television and radio. Child Development, 55, 2072-2082.
31. Phonetelle v. AT & T 889 F.2d 224 231-231 (9th Cir. 1989).
32. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Random House.
33. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. D., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.