The effectiveness of judicial instructions on eyewitness evidence in sensitizing jurors to suggestive identification procedures captured on video

  • Alena SkalonEmail author
  • Jennifer L. Beaudry



One of the legal safeguards designed to educate jurors about eyewitness evidence is judicial instructions. However, their effectiveness in sensitizing jurors to eyewitness accuracy and suggestive identification procedures captured on video is unknown.


Participants (N = 232) watched the video-recorded identification and testimony of one of 16 genuine eyewitnesses. We varied the suggestiveness of the identification procedure, whether they saw an accurate or inaccurate identification, and whether or not they received Victorian judicial instructions about eyewitness evidence.


Participants were sensitive to eyewitness accuracy when identification procedures were non-suggestive, with participants more likely to believe accurate eyewitnesses than inaccurate eyewitnesses. This sensitivity to identification accuracy was impaired when participants saw an identification made under suggestive circumstances. Judicial instructions did not significantly affect participants’ judgments with one exception: when they led to confusion. Participants who saw an identification obtained under suggestive circumstances were more willing to believe the eyewitness when they read the judicial instructions compared to those in the control condition.


Suggestive identification procedures impaired participants’ sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy. The Victorian judicial instructions did not improve participants’ sensitivity. This is the first test of judicial instructions that used Bayesian analyses to establish the absence of an effect. Thus, judicial instructions might not improve sensitivity to eyewitness accuracy or be an effective remedy for the damaging effects of suggestive identification procedures.


Eyewitness evidence Judicial instructions Juror decision-making Jury instructions Video-recorded identification procedure 



This work was partially supported by the Swinburne University of Technology Postgraduate Research Award. The authors would like to thank Bonnie Kirkman, Jamie Smith-Morvell, Meg Blackie, Molly McQueen, Olivia Bradfield, Roy Groncki, and Travis Edmonds for their thorough reviews and comments on the early version of this manuscript.


  1. Austin, J. L., Zimmerman, D. M., Rhead, L., & Kovera, M. B. (2013). Double-blind lineup administration. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 139–160). Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  2. Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2017). Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: how simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors’ application of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 284–304. Scholar
  3. Beaudry, J. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., Leach, A.-M., Mansour, J. K., Bertrand, M. I., & Kalmet, N. (2015). The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy, line-up presentation, and line-up administration on mock-jurors’ perceptions of eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 343–364. Scholar
  4. 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. Scholar
  5. Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2017). The jury under fire: myth, controversy, and reform. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 13–28. Scholar
  7. Boyce, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Belief of eyewitness evidence. In R. Lindsay, D. Ross, J. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for people (pp. 25–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30. Scholar
  9. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology (Memory for people) (Vol. 2, pp. 201–218). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Brock, R. L., Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., Dey, J., & Rolffs, J. (2012). Internet administration of paper-and-pencil questionnaires used in couple research: Assessing psychometric equivalence. Assessment, 19, 226–242. Scholar
  11. Chaiken, S. (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5),752–766Google Scholar
  12. 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. Scholar
  13. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197–1207. Scholar
  14. Davies v. The Queen VSCA 66 (2019).Google Scholar
  15. 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. Scholar
  16. DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: theory and applications (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042–1054. Scholar
  18. Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: the state of the science. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dienes, Z. (2014). Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1–17. Scholar
  20. Dillon, M. K., Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Hui, Y. T., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Henderson instructions: do they enhance evidence evaluation? Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 17, 1–24. Scholar
  21. Douglass, A. B., & Jones, E. E. (2013). Confidence inflation in eyewitnesses: Seeing is not believing. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 152–167.
  22. Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, S., Imrich, J., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law & Human Behavior, 34, 282–294. Scholar
  23. Geiselman, R., & Mendez, B. A. (2005). Assistance to the fact finder: eyewitness expert testimony versus attorneys’ closing arguments. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(2), 5–14.Google Scholar
  24. Giner-Sorolla, R. (2018). Powering Your Interaction [Blog]. Retrieved from
  25. Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. Scholar
  26. Harms, C., & Lakens, D. (2018). Making ‘null effects’ informative: statistical techniques and inferential frameworks. Journal of Clinical and Translational Research, 3(S 2), 382–393. Scholar
  27. Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2–9.Google Scholar
  28. JASP Team (2018). JASP (Version 0.9)[Computer software]. Retrieved from
  29. Jones, A. M., & Penrod, S. (2018). Improving the effectiveness of the Henderson instruction safeguard against unreliable eyewitness identification. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24, 177–193.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Dillon, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of Henderson instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 29–52. Scholar
  31. Judicial College of Victoria (2015). Section 4.13.1— Charge: identification evidence. Victorian criminal charge book. Retrieved from
  32. Judicial Commission of NSW. (2006). Criminal trial courts bench book. Retrieved 24 June 2018, from
  33. Kaminski, K. S., & Sporer, S. L. (2018). Observer judgments of identification accuracy are affected by non‐valid cues: A Brunswikian lens model analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 47–61.
  34. Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: the fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649–653. Scholar
  35. Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: a practical course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lieberman, D. Z. (2008). Evaluation of the stability and validity of participant samples recruited over the internet. Cyber Psychology and Behavior, 11, 743–745. Scholar
  37. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.Google Scholar
  38. Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Bertrand, M. I., Kalmet, N., Melsom, E. I, & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2012). Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 513–526.
  39. 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, 33, 225–236. Scholar
  40. Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2011). Can experts help jurors to evaluate eyewitness evidence? A review of eyewitness expert effects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 24–36. Scholar
  41. McGuire, W. J. (1972). Attitude change: the information-processing paradigm. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 108–141). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  42. Modjadidi, K., & Kovera, M. B. (2018). Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 244–257. Scholar
  43. New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (2011).Google Scholar
  44. Ogloff, J. R. P., & Rose, V. G. (2005). The comprehension of judicial instructions. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: an empirical perspective (pp. 407–444). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  45. Papailiou, A. P., Yokum, D. V., & Robertson, C. T. (2015). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PloS one, 10(12), 1–16.Google Scholar
  46. Pawlenko, N., Safer, M., Wise, R., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessments of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 190–197. Scholar
  47. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242–258.Google Scholar
  48. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. Scholar
  49. Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 31–66.Google Scholar
  50. Reardon, M. C., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 68–77. Scholar
  51. Riva, G., Teruzzi, T., & Anolli, L. (2003). The use of the internet in psychological research: comparison of online and offline questionnaires. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 6, 73–80.Google Scholar
  52. Rose, V.G. & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409–431.
  53. Safer, M. A., Murphy, R. P., Wise, R. A., Bussey, L., Millett, C., & Holfeld, B. (2016). Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial and forensic evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 86–92. Scholar
  54. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 262–270. Scholar
  55. 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. Scholar
  56. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. Scholar
  57. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). False-positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 255–259. Scholar
  58. Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014). Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 194–202. Scholar
  59. Steblay, N. K. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: a meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297. Scholar
  60. Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 1–18.Google Scholar
  61. Stefan, A. M., Gronau, Q. F., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2019). A tutorial on Bayes factor design analysis using an informed prior. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 1042–1058.Google Scholar
  62. Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1997). How effective is the motion-to-suppress safeguard? Judges’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 211–220.Google Scholar
  63. Tenney, E. R., MacCoun, R. J., Spellman, B. A., & Hastie, R. (2007). Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychological Science, 18, 46–50.Google Scholar
  64. The Innocence Project. (2019). Eyewitness misidentification. Retrieved from
  65. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
  66. Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., Selker, R., Gronau, Q. F., Smira, M., Epskamp, S., Matzke, D., Rouder, J. N., & Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 35–57.Google Scholar
  67. Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G. L., Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: the unruly 10–12-second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139–147. Scholar
  68. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376.
  69. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125. Scholar
  70. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R., & Ferguson, T. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448. Scholar
  71. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.Google Scholar
  72. Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2013). Eyewitness system variables. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 23–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  73. Wixted, J. T., & Wells, G. L. (2017). The relationship between eyewitness confidence and identification accuracy: a new synthesis. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18, 10–65. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological Sciences; School of Health Sciences; Faculty of Health, Arts and DesignSwinburne University of TechnologyHawthornAustralia

Personalised recommendations