The Relation between Consistency and Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony: Legal versus Cognitive Explanations

Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages 121-136

  Fisher, Ronald P ^a   Brewer, Neil ^b   Mitchell, Gregory ^c,d  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

'a prior self contradiction showing defect in memory or in honesty of witness'; Alternative predictor of overall witness accuracy; Contradictions in witnesses' testimonies and witnesses' recollection of unreported facts; Courtroom theory and Cognitive theory retrieval processes and independence of components; Experimental testing predictions of Courtroom and Cognitive theories; Eyewitness testimony consistency and accuracy; Inconsistent statements and resolving a puzzle; Legal approach witness consistency, important measures of witness credibility; Legal versus cognitive explanations; Rationale of courtroom arguments and instructions

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953007411     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470747599.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Alavi, A. & Ahmad, N. (2002). Credibility and impeachment: Fundamentals of direct and cross-examination. Paper presented at the University of Houston Law Foundation Continuing Legal Education Workshop, 1-29.
2. Bailey, F. L. & Rothblatt, H. B. (1971). Successful techniques for criminal trials. Rochester, NY: The Lawyers Co-op Publ. Co. & Bancroft-Whitney Co.
3. Berman, G. L. & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170-177.
4. Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J. & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors 'evaluations of eyewitnesses, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 79-88.
5. Brewer, N. & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 353-364.
6. Brewer, N. & Hupfeld, R. M. (2004). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and witness group identity on mock-juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 493-513.
7. Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N. & Luszcz, M. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 297-313.
8. Brock, P., Fisher, R. P. & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Examining the cognitive interview in a double-test paradigm. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 29-45.
9. Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the District Judges Association of the Sixth Circuit (2005). Sixth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions. Cincinnati, OH: Judicial Council for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
10. Erickson, B., Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C. & O'Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of 'powerful 'and' powerless 'speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
11. Fisher, R. P. & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In G. M. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran & C. Wilson (Eds.), Psychology and law: Advances in research (pp. 21-28). Berlin: DeGruyter.
12. Fisher, R. P. & Patterson, T. (2004). The relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness memory. Paper presented at 45th annual meeting of the Psychnomic Society: Minneapolis.
13. Fisher, R. P. & Reardon, M. C. (in press). Eyewitness identification. In Carson, D., Milne, R., Pakes, F., Shalev, K. & Shawyer, A. (Eds.), Applying psychology to criminal justice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
14. Fisher, R. P., Phillips, M. R. & Krioukova, M. (2000). Independent recall of the various components of a complex event. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, November.
15. Fisher, R. P., Schreiber, N., Burguera, M. & Alvarez, C. (2003). Consistency of eyewitness recollection as an indicator of accuracy. Poster presented at the 44th annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society: Vancouver, Canada.
16. Fisher, R. P., Patterson, T. & Hazel, J. (2006). Question format and response consistency as predictors of the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In preparation. Miami, FL: Florida International University.
17. Gilbert, J. A. E. & Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 723-739.
18. Glissan, J. L. (1991). Cross-examination: Practice and procedure. Sydney: Butterworths.
19. Gordon, B. N. & Follmer, A. (1994). Developmental issues in judging the credibility of children's testimony. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 283-294.
20. Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A. & Jonsson, A-C. (2003). Partners in crime: How liars in collusion betray themselves. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 848-868.
21. Iannuzzi, J. N. (1999). Handbook of cross-examination: The mosaic art, 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22. La Rooy, D., Pipe, M. E. & Murray, J. E. (2005). Reminiscence and hypermnesia in children's eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 235-254.
23. 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.
24. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L. & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447-459.
25. Mauet, T. (1980). Fundamentals of trial techniques, 4th edition. New York: Little, Brown & Co.
26. Mitchell, T., Haw, R. & Fisher, R. P. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy: Can accuracy for one statement be predictive of more 'global' accuracy? Paper presented at European Psych-Law Society. Edinburgh.
27. Office of Court Administration Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions (2007). New York Criminal Jury Instructions, 2d. New York: NYS Office of Court Administration.
28. Park, R. C., Leonard, D. P. & Goldberg, S. H. (2004). Evidence law, 2nd edition. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.
29. Payne, D. G. (1987). Hypermnesia and reminiscence in recall: A historical and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 5-27.
30. Phillips, M. R., Fisher, R. P. & Krioukova, M. (1999). Metacognitive processes in eyewitness memory. Paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of The Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, November.
31. Potter, R. & Brewer, N. (1999). Perceptions of witness behaviour-accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers and jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6, 97-103.
32. Pozner, L. & Dodd, R. (1993). Cross-examination: Science and techniques. Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.
33. Scrivner, E. & Safer, M. A. (1988). Eyewitnesses show hypermnesia for details about a violent event. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 371-377.
34. Strong, J. W. (1999). McCormick on evidence, 5th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Group.
35. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of episodic memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
36. Tulving, E. (1985). How many memory systems are there? American Psychologist, 40, 385-398.
37. Uviller, H. R. (1993). Credence, character, and the rules of evidence: Seeing through the liar's tale. Duke Law Journal, 42, 776-832.
38. Wells, G. L. & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identification? Using memory for detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682-687.
39. Wigmore, J. H. (1904; revised by J. H. Chadbourn, 1970). Evidence in trials at common law, Vol. 3A. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.