Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: In search of common sense

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 637-651

  Houston, Kate A ^a   Hope, Lorraine ^a   Memon, Amina ^b   Don Read, J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84885472602     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2080     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alonzo, J. D., & Lane, S. M. (2010). Saying versus judging: Assessing knowledge of eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(9), 1245-1264. doi: 10.1002/acp.1626
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, 115-129. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1171
3. Brigham, J. C., & Wolfskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of Attorneys and Law-enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337-349.
4. Chan, N., & Kennedy, P. E. (2002). Are multiple-choice exams easier for Economics students? A comparison of multiple-choice and "equivalent" constructed-response exam questions. Southern Economic Journal, 68, 957-971.
5. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, Psychology, and the Law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191. DOI: 10.1007/BF01062972
7. Cutler B., Penrod S., & Stuve T. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness Identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
8. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30. DOI: 10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
9. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706.
10. Desmarais, S. L., & Read, J. D. (2011). After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 200-210. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9232-6
11. Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 709-727. DOI: 10.1002/bsl.670
12. Judicial Studies Committee (2012). Jury Manual. Scotland, UK: Judicial Studies Committee for Scotland.
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., Tubb, A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the 'general acceptance' of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.56.5.405
15. Katz, I. R., Bennet, R. A., & Berger, A. E. (2000). Effects of response format on difficulty of SAT mathematics items: It's not the strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 36 - 57.
16. Laub, C., & Bornstein, B. H. (2008). Juries and eyewitnesses. In Cutler B. L. (Ed.), Encylopedia of Psychology and Law (Vol. 1). California: USA: Sage Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781412959537
17. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 333-339. DOI: 10.1007/BF01067033
18. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
19. Magnussen, S., Wise, R. A., Raja, A. Q., Safer, M. A., Pwelenko, N., & Stridbeck, U. (2008). What judges know about eyewitness testimony: A comparison of Norwegian and US judges. Psychology, Crime and Law, 14(3), 177-188. doi: 10.1080/10683160701580099
20. McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377-384. DOI: 10.1080/00050068908259576
21. Messick, D. M. (1989). Review of decision analysis and behavioral research, by von Winterfeldt & Edwards (Eds.) (book review). Psychometrika, 54, 363-364.
22. Neal, T. M. S., Christiansen, A., Bornstein, B. H., & Robicheaux, T. R. (2012). The effects of mock juror's beliefs about eyewitness performance on trial judgments. Psychology, Crime and Law, 18(1), 49-64. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.587815
23. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British Survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153. DOI: 10.1002/acp.2350010207
24. Read, J. D., & Desmarais, S. L. (2009a). Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology 23, 301-326. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1459
25. Read, J. D., & Desmarais, S. L. (2009b). Expert psychology testimony on eyewitness identification: A matter of commonsense? In Cutler B. L. (Ed.), Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification (pp. 115-142). New York: USA, Oxford University Press.
26. Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1987). Problems in the use of survey questions to measure public opinion. Science, 236, 957-959.
27. Shaw, J. S., III, Garcia, L. A., & McClure, K. A. (1999). A lay perspective on the accuracy of Eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 52-71. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01374.x
28. Sheriffs' Association (2012). The Office of Sheriff. Scotland, UK: Judiciary of Scotland.
29. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (2012). Common (Mis)Beliefs about Memory: A Replication and Comparison of Telephone and Mechanical Turk Survey Methods. PLoS ONE, 7(12): e51876. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051876
30. The Innocence Project (2012). Understanding the causes: Eyewitness misidentification. Retrieved August 2012 from: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php
31. The National Archives (2003). Countries within a country. Retrieved July 2013 from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page823
32. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45-75.
33. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US Judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427 - 443. DOI: 10.1002/acp.993
34. Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A., & Maro, C. A. (2011). What U.S. law enforcement officers know and believe about eyewitness factors, eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 488-500. doi: 10.1002/acp.1717
35. Wright, D. B. (2006). Causal and associative hypothesis in psychology: Examples from eyewitness testimony research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 190-213. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.12.2.190