The Influence of Eyewitness Expert Testimony on Jurors' Beliefs and Judgments

Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification

Volumn , Issue , 2009, Pages

  Leippe, Michael R ^a   Eisenstadt, Donna ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication; Expert testimony; Eyewitness; Juror knowledge; Jury decision making; Memory; Persuasion; Social influence

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875610511     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331974.003.008     Document Type: Chapter

References (73)

1. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2005). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-129.
2. 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.
3. Boyce, M., Beaudry, J., & Linsay, R. C. L. (2007). Belief of eyewitness identification evidence. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. II: Memory for people (pp. 501-525). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Sidera, J. A. (1982). The effects of a salient self-schema on the evaluation of proattitudinal editorials: Top-down versus bottom-up message processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 324-338.
6. 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.
7. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
8. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
9. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
10. Cooper, J., & Hall, J. (2000). Reactions of mock-jurors to testimony of a court-appointed expert. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 719-729.
11. Cooper, J., & Neuhaus, I, M. (2000). The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-171.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
15. 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.
16. Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338-361.
17. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042-1054.
18. Devlin, Hon. Lord Patrick. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department Of the Departmental Committee on Evidence and Identification in Criminal Cases. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
19. Eagly, A. H. (1974). Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 758-773.
20. Fazio, R. H. (1979). Motives for social comparison: The construction-validation distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1683-1698.
21. 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.
22. Geiselman, R. E., & Mendez, B. A. (2005). Assistance to the fact finder: Eyewitness expert testimony versus attorney's closing arguments. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 5-15.
23. Geiselman, R. E., Putman, C., Korte, R., Shahriary, M., Jachimowicz, G., & Irzhevsky, V. (2002). Eyewitness expert testimony and juror decisions. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 20, 21-36.
24. Griffith, J. D., Hart, C. L., Frigo, C., Hoscheck, D., Householder, K., & Harkins, J. (2005). Expert witnesses: Perceptions of eligible jurors. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23, 23-39.
25. Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26. 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.
27. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Freeman.
28. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 2-24.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Leippe, M. R. (1991). A self-image analysis of persuasion and attitude involvement. In R. C. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self: Theoretical convergences in psychoanalysis and social psychology (pp. 37-63). New York: Guilford.
35. 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.
36. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
37. Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2007). Eyewitness confidence and the confidenceaccuracy relationship in memory for people. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people (pp. 377-425). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., & Kiddoo, K. (2005, March). Eyewitness expert testimony and instructions about reasonable doubt: Independent influences on perceptions of trial evidence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, La Jolla, CA.
39. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D. E., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524-541.
40. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M., & Stambush, M. (2006). Effects of socialcomparative memory feedback on eyewitnesses' identification confidence, suggestibility, and retrospective memory reports. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 201-220.
41. Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response Involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Lindsay, R. C. L., Ross, D. F. Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol. 2: Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and between situations?. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
46. Loftus, E. F. (1974, December). The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 8(7), 116-119.
47. Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, in press.
48. Moore, P. J., & Gump, B. B. (1995). Information integration in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2158-2179.
49. Patterson, B. W. (2004). The "tyranny of the eyewitness." Law & Psychology Review, 28, 195-203.
50. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public, Policy, and Law, 1, 817-845.
51. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81.
52. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. A. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
53. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th edition, Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
55. Pezdek, K. (2007). Expert testimony on eyewitness memory and identification. In M. Costanz, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Pratkanis, A. R., Greenwald, A. G., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1988). In search of Reliable persuasion effects: III. The sleeper effect is dead. Long live the sleeper effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 203-218.
57. Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E., Jr. (1996). Judges' cautionary instructions on Eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31-66.
58. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173-220). New York: Academic Press.
59. Scheck, B., & Neufeld, P. (2008). The innocence project. Retrieved January 15, 2008 from The Innocence Project Homepage: .
60. 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.
61. Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors' Decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1266-1280.
62. Sigler, J. N., & Couch, J. V. (2002). Eyewitness testimony and the jury verdict. North American Journal of Psychology, 4, 143-148.
63. Vidmar, N. (2005). Expert evidence, the adversary system, and the jury. American Journal of Public Health, 95 (Supplement 1), S137-S143.
64. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp.141-208). San Diego: Academic Press.
65. Wells, G. L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analysis of effects [Special issue: The ethics of expert testimony]. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 83-95.
66. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
67. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
68. 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.
69. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
70. 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.
71. Wells, G. L., & Wright, E. F. (1983). Unpublished raw data.
72. 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.
73. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 13-40). Chichester, England: Wiley.