Five studies examined how college students react to child eyewitnesses in criminal cases. In Study 1, subjects made predictions about a staged crime study involving eyewitnesses of varying age. The actual study found no age differences, yet subjects predicted poorer recall (but not face recognition) for children under 10 than for those 12 and over. In Studies 2–5, subjects read and reacted to written criminal cases in which the principal prosecution eyewitness was either a child or an adult. In Study 2, a 6-year-old eyewitness was judged less credible than an adult eyewitness, and fewer guilty judgments were rendered when the eyewitness was 6 or 10 years old (versus an adult) and the prosecution case was otherwise strong. In Study 3, apparent inconsistency lowered the credibility of a 6-year-old eyewitness but not of a 10-or 30-year-old eyewitness. These studies presented a narrative description of the trial and the testimony. In Study 4, a transcript of testimony was also presented. Here a 6-year-old eyewitness was judged more credible than an adult eyewitness, and more guilty judgments were rendered (before and after jury deliberation) when the case included, the child eyewitness. Study 5 manipulated the description-or-transcript distinction and observed a bias against cases with a child eyewitness when mock-jurors simply knew eyewitness age (as in Study 2) and a bias favoring these cases when mock-jurors read the eyewitness testimony (as in Study 4). This pattern suggests the important roles of jurors' preconceptions, eyewitness behaviors, and whether the latter confirm or disconfirm the former.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 132 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.