Neuroscience
Some judges in America have allowed the introduction of psychologists in court to help jurors understand eye-witness suggestibility - that is, how prone their memory is to distortion, for example by misleading questioning. But other judges have refused such expert testimony, on the basis that jurors ought to be able to rely on their common knowledge and intuition.
In a way, this represents a real-life example of the charge often made at psychology that it is all just common sense.
Now Bradley McAuliff and Margaret Kovera have put the issue to the test by taking a number of recognised factors from the research literature on suggestibility, and comparing the knowledge and understanding of these factors shown by 58 psychologist experts, 157 jurors and 220 undergrad students.
The psychologists correctly recognised that witnesses actively involved in an incident will be less prone to suggestion, as will witnesses questioned about central rather than peripheral details. The psychologists also recognised that misleading questions from a source lacking authority will be less damaging than such questioning from a source with some prestige. By contrast, the jurors and students failed to recognise the impact of any of these factors on witness suggestibility.
However, like the experts, the jurors and students did recognise that pre-school children will be more suggestible than young children and adults, although they underestimated the size of this difference. The jurors and students, like the experts, also realised that witnesses warned about the dangers of suggestion will be less prone to it, and that witness accuracy will be poorer, the longer ago a given incident occurred - no doubt because these factors really are common sense.
Ultimately, all the participants, experts and lay people alike, agreed that when it comes to witness suggestibility, expert testimony would be appropriate and helpful. "Certain information about witness suggestibility exceeds jurors' common knowledge and understanding," the researchers concluded.
_________________________________
McAuliff, B.D. & Kovera, M.B. (2007). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don't already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 849-870.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
- Test How Much You Know About The Reliability Of Memory
In the latest in a series of investigations into how much people know about eye witness memory, Svein Magnussen and Annika Melinder have compiled 12 questions about memory and put them to 857 licensed members of the Norwegian Psychological Association....
- Are The Police Any Better Than Us At Judging The Accuracy Of Eye-witness Statements?
Plenty of research has been conducted into the ability of people, including police officers, to judge whether people are lying: most of us are useless, while new research suggests the police may be better. However, little research has been conducted into...
- What Do Criminal Barristers Think Of Psychologists And Psychiatrists?
Most criminal barristers think psychiatrists make more useful expert witnesses than clinical psychologists, with the latter considered to be most appropriate when it comes to determining confession reliability. That's according to a survey of 62 British...
- How To Avoid Death Row...
Whether jurors decide to hand down a life sentence or the death penalty depends in part on their perception of the defendant’s appearance. That’s the finding from interviews with 80 jurors during their involvement in real-life American murder cases....
- Memory Expert's Memory About False Memory Is False
Yes, this one isn't "Just Science," and it's over 3 months old, but it fits in with the recent memory theme here at The Neurocritic. In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.:Oct 27, 2006. p. A.21 . . . Fitzgerald's...
Neuroscience
Can psychologists tell jurors anything they don't know already?
Some judges in America have allowed the introduction of psychologists in court to help jurors understand eye-witness suggestibility - that is, how prone their memory is to distortion, for example by misleading questioning. But other judges have refused such expert testimony, on the basis that jurors ought to be able to rely on their common knowledge and intuition.In a way, this represents a real-life example of the charge often made at psychology that it is all just common sense.
Now Bradley McAuliff and Margaret Kovera have put the issue to the test by taking a number of recognised factors from the research literature on suggestibility, and comparing the knowledge and understanding of these factors shown by 58 psychologist experts, 157 jurors and 220 undergrad students.
The psychologists correctly recognised that witnesses actively involved in an incident will be less prone to suggestion, as will witnesses questioned about central rather than peripheral details. The psychologists also recognised that misleading questions from a source lacking authority will be less damaging than such questioning from a source with some prestige. By contrast, the jurors and students failed to recognise the impact of any of these factors on witness suggestibility.
However, like the experts, the jurors and students did recognise that pre-school children will be more suggestible than young children and adults, although they underestimated the size of this difference. The jurors and students, like the experts, also realised that witnesses warned about the dangers of suggestion will be less prone to it, and that witness accuracy will be poorer, the longer ago a given incident occurred - no doubt because these factors really are common sense.
Ultimately, all the participants, experts and lay people alike, agreed that when it comes to witness suggestibility, expert testimony would be appropriate and helpful. "Certain information about witness suggestibility exceeds jurors' common knowledge and understanding," the researchers concluded.
_________________________________
McAuliff, B.D. & Kovera, M.B. (2007). Estimating the effects of misleading information on witness accuracy: Can experts tell jurors something they don't already know? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 849-870.
Post written by Christian Jarrett (@psych_writer) for the BPS Research Digest.
- Test How Much You Know About The Reliability Of Memory
In the latest in a series of investigations into how much people know about eye witness memory, Svein Magnussen and Annika Melinder have compiled 12 questions about memory and put them to 857 licensed members of the Norwegian Psychological Association....
- Are The Police Any Better Than Us At Judging The Accuracy Of Eye-witness Statements?
Plenty of research has been conducted into the ability of people, including police officers, to judge whether people are lying: most of us are useless, while new research suggests the police may be better. However, little research has been conducted into...
- What Do Criminal Barristers Think Of Psychologists And Psychiatrists?
Most criminal barristers think psychiatrists make more useful expert witnesses than clinical psychologists, with the latter considered to be most appropriate when it comes to determining confession reliability. That's according to a survey of 62 British...
- How To Avoid Death Row...
Whether jurors decide to hand down a life sentence or the death penalty depends in part on their perception of the defendant’s appearance. That’s the finding from interviews with 80 jurors during their involvement in real-life American murder cases....
- Memory Expert's Memory About False Memory Is False
Yes, this one isn't "Just Science," and it's over 3 months old, but it fits in with the recent memory theme here at The Neurocritic. In the Libby Case, A Grilling to Remember The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.:Oct 27, 2006. p. A.21 . . . Fitzgerald's...