Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony.

Abstract

A review is made of recent experimental research regarding how well human observers can judge the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. It is concluded that people: (a) may be overwilling to believe in the accuracy of eyewitnesses' memory; (b) rely too heavily on the confidence of eyewitnesses in judging the validity of testimony; (c) fail to adequately account for witnessing conditions across crimes; and (d) cannot discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses within crimes. New data are reported from an experiment designed to test the effects that expert psychological advice has on subject-jurors' performance with regard to these four deficiencies. The results showed that expert advice served to eliminate the overbelief bias and greatly reduced subject-jurors' reliance on the confidence of the witnesses. Expert, advice did not improve the extent to which subject-jurors took account of the witnessing conditions across crimes nor their ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses within crimes.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 98 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.