Eyewitness Evidence and Testimony

  • Kipling D. Williams
  • Elizabeth F. Loftus
  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher

Abstract

Eyewitness testimony is one of the most pervasive and powerful types of evidence routinely introduced in courts of law. Relying on research in memory, perception, and social psychology, we summarize in this chapter the current knowledge of jurors’ beliefs about eyewitness testimony, factors that affect eyewitness accuracy, as well as aspects of the testimony and witness characteristics that influence juror belief. Finally, we discuss the issue of whether research results such as these ought to be communicated to triers of fact, and if so, by what means. This chapter builds on previous reviews (i.e., Loftus, 1981; Loftus & Doyle, 1987; Shapiro & Penrod, 1986), briefly summarizing the earlier work and then updating it with new research published since 1984. As we shall see, some conclusions remain the same, but some are modified.

Keywords

Retention Interval Apply Psychology Cognitive Interview Expert Testimony Mock Juror 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allport, G.W., & Postman, L. (1945). The basic psychology of rumor. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 11, 61–81.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G.W., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
  3. Barkowitz, P., & Brigham, J.C. (1982). Recognition of faces: Own-race bias, incentive, and time delay. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 225–268.Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett, J.C., & Leslie, J.E. (1986). Aging and memory for faces versus single views of faces. Memory & Cognition, 14, 371–381.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171–1192.Google Scholar
  6. Belli, R.F. (1989). Influences of misleading post-event information: Misinformation interference and acceptance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 72–85.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, P., & Gibling, F. (1989). Can we trust our eyes? Policing, 5, 313–321.Google Scholar
  8. Bothwell, R.K., Brigham, J.C., & Pigott, M.A. (1987). An exploratory study of personality differences in eyewitness memory. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 335–343.Google Scholar
  9. Bothwell, R.K., Deffenbacher, K.A., & Brigham, J.C (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695.Google Scholar
  10. Bothwell, R.K., & Hosch, H.M. (1987). [Effects of realistic arousal levels on identification accuracy of bystanders.] Unpublished data, University of Texas at El Paso.Google Scholar
  11. Brigham, J.C (1986). The influence of race on face recognition. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 170–177). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  12. Brigham, J.C., & Bothwell, R.K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19–30.Google Scholar
  13. Brigham, J.C., Maass, A., Martinez, D., & Whittenberger, G. (1983). The effect of arousal on facial recognition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 279–293.Google Scholar
  14. Brigham, J.C., & Maass, A., Snyder, L. S., & Spaulding, K. (1982). The accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673–681.Google Scholar
  15. Brigham, J.C., & Wolfskiel, M.P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness idenification. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337–349.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, E.L., Deffenbacher, K.A., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311–318.Google Scholar
  17. Carey, S. (1981). The development of face perception. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.), Perceiving and remembering faces (pp. 9–38). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., & Toglia, M.P. (1987a). Age differences in suggestibility: Narrowing the uncertainties. In S.J. Ceci, M.P. Toglia, & D.F. Ross (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 79–91). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., & Toglia, M.P. (1987b). Suggestibility of children’s memory: Psycholegal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 116, 38–49.Google Scholar
  20. Chance, J.E., Turner, A.L., & Goldstein, A.G. (1982). Development of differential recognition of own- and other-race faces. Journal of Psychology, 112, 29–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Chandler, C.C. (1989). Specific retroactive interference in modified recognition tests: Evidence for an unknown cause of interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 15, 256–265.Google Scholar
  22. Christianson, S., & Loftus, E.F. (1987). Memory for traumatic events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–239.Google Scholar
  23. Christie, D.F.M., & Ellis, H.D. (1981). Photofit constructions versus verbal descriptions of faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 358–368.Google Scholar
  24. Clifford, B.R. (1978). A critique of eyewitness research. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 199–209). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Clifford, B.R., & Hollin, C. (1981). Effects of type of incident and the number or perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364–370.Google Scholar
  26. Clifford, B.R., & Scott, J. (1978). Individual and situational factors in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 352–359.Google Scholar
  27. Cutler, B.L., Dexter, H.R., & Penrod, S.D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225.Google Scholar
  28. Cutler, B.L., & Penrod, S.D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.Google Scholar
  29. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. (1989b). Expert testimony on eyewitness identification: The hired gun, the friend of the court, the battling experts, and the judge. Unpublished manuscipt, Florida International University.Google Scholar
  30. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Dexter, H.R. (1989a). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332.Google Scholar
  31. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Martens, T.K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233–258.Google Scholar
  32. Culter, B.L., Penrod, S.D., O’Rourke, T.E., & Marten, T.K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behavior: An International Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2, 113–134.Google Scholar
  33. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Stuve, T.E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55.Google Scholar
  34. Darley, J.M., Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20–33.Google Scholar
  35. Davies, G.M. (1983). Forensic face recall: The role of visual and verbal information. In S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 103–123). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Davies, G.M. (1986). Capturing likeness in eyewitness composites: The police artist and his rivals. Medical Science Law, 26, 283–290.Google Scholar
  37. Deffenbacher, K.A. (1983). The influence of arousal on reliability of testimony. In S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluât-ing witness evidence (pp. 235–251). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Deffenbacher, K.A. (1986). On the memorability of the human face. In H.D. Ellis, M.A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 61–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  39. Deffenbacher, K.A. (1989). Forensic facial memory: Time is of the essence. In A.W. Young & H.D. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of research on face processing (pp. 563–570). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Deffenbacher, K.A. (in press). A maturing of research on the behaviour of eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Google Scholar
  41. Deffenbacher, K.A., & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15–30.Google Scholar
  42. Dent, H.R. (1988). Children’s eyewitness evidence: A brief review. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues. Vol. 1: Memory in everyday life (pp. 101–106). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Devine, P.G., & Malpass, R.S. (1985). Orienting strategies in differential face recognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 33–40.Google Scholar
  44. Ebbesen, E.B., & Koneçni, V.J. (1982). Social psychology and the law: A decision-making approach to the criminal justice system. In V.J. Koneçni & E.B. Ebbesen (Eds.), The criminal justice system: A social-psychological analysis (pp. 3–23). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  45. Elliott, R., Farrington, B., & Manheimer, H. (1988). Eyewitnesses credible and discredible. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1411–1422.Google Scholar
  46. Ellis, H.D., Davies, G.M., & Shepherd, J.W. (1977). Experimental studies of face identification. National Journal of Criminal Defense, 3, 219–234.Google Scholar
  47. Eysenck, H.H., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1968). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
  48. Federal Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates (1975). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Fisher, R.P., Geiselman, R.E., & Raymond, D.S. (1987). Critical analysis of police interview techniques. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 177–185.Google Scholar
  50. Fisher, R.P., Geiselman, R.E., Raymond, D.S., Jurkevich, L.M., & Warhaftig, M.L. (1987). Enhancing enhanced eyewitness memory: Refining the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 291–297.Google Scholar
  51. Geiselman, R.E., (1988). Improving eyewitness memory through mental reinstatement of context. In G.M. Davies & D.M. Thomson (Eds.), Memory in context: Context in memory (pp. 245–266). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  52. Geiselman, R.E., Fisher, R.P., MacKinnon, D.P., & Holland, H.L. (1985). Eyewitness memory enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 401–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Geiselman, R.E., Fisher, R.P., MacKinnon, D.P., & Holland, H.L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385–401.Google Scholar
  54. Gibling, F., & Davies, G. (1988). Reinstatement of context following exposure to post-event information. British Journal of Psychology, 79, 129–141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Goldstein, A.G., & Chance, J.E. (1985). Effects of training on Japanese face recognition: Reduction of the other race effect. Bulletin of the Psy-chonomic Society, 23, 211–214.Google Scholar
  56. Goldstein, A.G., Chance, J.E., & Schneller, G.R. (1989). Frequency of eyewitness identification in criminal cases: A survey of prosecutors. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 71–74.Google Scholar
  57. Goodman, G.S., & Reed, R.S. (1986). Age differences in eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 317–332.Google Scholar
  58. Gudjonsson, G.H. (1986). The relationship between interrogative suggestability and acquiescence: Empirical findings and the theoretical implications. Personality and Individual Differences, 7, 195–199.Google Scholar
  59. Hall, D.H., Loftus, E.F., & Tousignant, J.P. (1984). Postevent information and changes in recollection for a natural event. In G.L. Wells & E.F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 124–141). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hammersley, R., & Read, J.D. (1986). What is integration? Remembering a story and remembering false implications about the story. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 329–341.Google Scholar
  61. Hastorf, A.H., & Cantrill, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134.Google Scholar
  62. Havatny, N., & Strack, F. (1980). The impact of a discredited key witness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 490–509.Google Scholar
  63. Hilgard, E.R., & Loftus, E.F. (1979). Effective interrogation of the eyewitness. The International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 27, 90–95.Google Scholar
  64. Hosch, H.M., & Platz, S.J. (1984). Self-monitoring and eyewitness accuracy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 289–292.Google Scholar
  65. Johnson, C., & Scott, B. (1975). The effects of arousal on the cognitive processing of information in an eyewitness setting. Unpublished master’s thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.Google Scholar
  66. Johnson, C., & Scott, B. (1976, August). Eyewitness testimony and suspect identification as a function of arousal, sex of witness, and scheduling of interrogation. Paper presented at meetings of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  67. Johnson, M.K., & Foley, M.A. (1984). Differentiating fact from fantasy: The reliability of children’s memory. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 33–50.Google Scholar
  68. Kassin, S.M. (1984). Eyewitness identification: Victims versus bystanders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 519–529.Google Scholar
  69. Kassin, S.M. (1985). Eyewitness identification: Retrospective self-awareness and the accuracy-confidence correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 878–893.Google Scholar
  70. Kassin, S.M., Ellsworth, P.C., & Smith, V.L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony. American Psychologist, 44, 1089–1098.Google Scholar
  71. King, M.A., & Yuille, J.C. (1987). Suggestibility and the child witness. In S.J. Ceci, M.P. Toglia, & D.F. Ross (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 24–33). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Köhnken, G., & Brockmann, C. (1987). Unspecific poste vent information, attribution of responsibility, and eyewitness performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 197–207.Google Scholar
  73. Koneçni, V.J., & Ebbesen, E.B. (1986). Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 117–126.Google Scholar
  74. Kroll, N.E.A., & Ogawa, K.H. (1988). Retrieval of the irretrievable: The effect of sequential information on response bias. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.). Practical aspects of memory: Vol. 1. Current research and issues (pp. 490–495). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. Kroll, N.E.A., & Timourian, D.A. (1986). Misleading questions and the retrieval of the irretrievable. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 24, 165–168.Google Scholar
  76. Laughery, K.R., & Fowler, R.F. (1980). Sketch artist and Identi-kit procedures for recalling faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 307–316.Google Scholar
  77. Leippe, M.R. (1985). The influence of eyewitness nonidentifications on mock-jurors’ judgments of a court case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 656–672.Google Scholar
  78. Lindsay, D.S. & Johnson, M.K. (1987). Reality monitoring and suggestibility: Children’s ability to discriminate among memories from different sources. In S.J. Ceci, M.P. Toglia, & D.F. Ross (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 92–121). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  79. Lindsay, R.C.L., & Wells, G.L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.Google Scholar
  80. 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 and Human Behavior, 13, 333–339.Google Scholar
  81. Lindsay, R.C.L., Wells, G.L., & Rumpel, C. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79–89.Google Scholar
  82. Lipton, J. (1977). On the psychology of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 90–95.Google Scholar
  83. List, J. (1986). Age and schematic differences in the reliability of eye witness testimony. Developmental Psychology, 22, 50–57.Google Scholar
  84. Loftus, E.F. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 8, 116–119.Google Scholar
  85. Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572.Google Scholar
  86. Loftus, E.F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Loftus, E.F. (1981). Eyewitness testimony: Psychological research and legal thought. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 3, pp. 105–151). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  88. Loftus, E.F., & Burns, T.E. (1982). Mental shock can produce retrograde amnesia. Memory & Cognition, 10, 318–323.Google Scholar
  89. Loftus, E.F., & Doyle, J.M. (1987). Eyewitness testimony: Civil and criminal. New York: Kluwer Law Book Publishers.Google Scholar
  90. Loftus, E.F., & Hoffman, H.G. (1989). Misinformation and memory: The creation of memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 118, 100–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Loftus, E.F., Loftus, G.R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55–62.Google Scholar
  92. Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.G., & Burns, H.J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31.Google Scholar
  93. Loftus, E.F., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5, 86–88.Google Scholar
  94. Loh, W.D. (1981). Psycholegal research: Past and present. Michigan Law Review, 79, 659–707.Google Scholar
  95. Maass, A., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Eyewitness identification: Simulating the “weapon effect.” Law and Human Behavior, 13, 397–408.Google Scholar
  96. Malpass, R.S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299–309.Google Scholar
  97. Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. (1981). Guided memory in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 343–350.Google Scholar
  98. Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S.M.A. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81–102). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  99. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S. Ct. 2243 (1976).Google Scholar
  100. McAllister, H.A., & Bregman, N.J. (1986). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 168–170.Google Scholar
  101. McCloskey, M.E., & Egeth, H.E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.Google Scholar
  102. McCloskey, M.E., Egeth, H.E., & McKenna, J. (1986). The experimental psychologist in court: The ethics of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 1–13.Google Scholar
  103. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 114, 1–16.Google Scholar
  104. Morton, J., Hammersley, R.H., & Bekerian, D.A. (1985). Headed records: A model for memory and its failures. Cognition, 20, 1–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Münsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: Clark Boardman.Google Scholar
  106. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375; 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972).Google Scholar
  107. Noon, E., & Hollins, C.R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143–153.Google Scholar
  108. People v. McDonald, 37 Cal. 3d 351, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236 (1984).Google Scholar
  109. Peters, D.P. (1988). Eyewitness memory and arousal in a natural setting. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Vol 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 89–94). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  110. Pirolli, P.L., & Mitterer, J.O. (1984). The effect of leading questions on prior memory: Evidence for the coexistence of inconsistent memory traces. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 38, 135–141.Google Scholar
  111. Rattner, A. (1983). Convicting the innocent: When justice goes wrong. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  112. Register, P.A. & Kihlstrom, J.F. (1988). Hypnosis and interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 549–558.Google Scholar
  113. Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185–193.Google Scholar
  114. Ross, D.F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M.P., & Ceci, S.J. (1990). The child in the eyes of the jury: Assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of the child witness. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 5–23.Google Scholar
  115. Sanders, G.S., & Simmons, W.L. (1983). Use of hypnosis to enhance eyewitness memory: Does it work? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 70–77.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. Shapiro, P.N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.Google Scholar
  117. Sheehan, P.W. (1988). Confidence, memory, and hypnosis. In H. Pettinati (Ed.), Hypnosis and memory (pp. 96–154). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  118. Sheehan, P.W., & Tilden, J. (1986). The consistency of occurrences of memory distortion following hypnotic induction. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34, 122–137.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Smith, A.D., & Winograd, E. (1978). Adult age differences in remembering faces. Developmental Psychology, 14, 443–444.Google Scholar
  120. Smith, V.L., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1987). The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: Misleading questions and communicator expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 294–300.Google Scholar
  121. Smith, V.L., Kassin, S.M., Ellsworth, P.C. (1989). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Within-versus between-subjects correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 356–359.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. Snyder, M., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (1978). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 148–162.Google Scholar
  123. Snyder, M., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.Google Scholar
  124. State v. Chappie, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).Google Scholar
  125. State v. Moon, 45 Wash. App. 692, 726 P.2d 1263 (1986).Google Scholar
  126. Tickner, A.H., & Poulton, E.C. (1975). Watching for people and actions. Ergonomics, 18, 35–51.Google Scholar
  127. Tooley, V., Brigham, J.C., Maass, A., & Bothwell, R.K. (1987). Facial recognition: Weapon effect and attentional focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 845–849.Google Scholar
  128. Tousignant, J.P., Hall, D., & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading post-event information. Memory & Cognition, 14, 329–338.Google Scholar
  129. Treadway, M., & McCloskey, M. (1987). Cite unseen: Distortions of the Allport and Postman study in the eyewitness testimony literature. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 19–25.Google Scholar
  130. Tversky, B., & Tuchin, M. (1989). A reconciliation of the evidence on eyewitness testimony: Comments on McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 86–91.Google Scholar
  131. Uniform Crime Reports for the United States (July 25, 1987). Washington DC: FBI, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  132. United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1973).Google Scholar
  133. United States v. Downing, 753 F. 1224 (3rd Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  134. United States v. Fosher, 590 F.2d 381 (1st Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
  135. United States v. Frye, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923).Google Scholar
  136. United States v. Jackson, No. 16158–74 (Super. Ct. DC 1975).Google Scholar
  137. United States v. Moore, 786 F.2d 1308 (5th Cir. 1986).Google Scholar
  138. United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  139. United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (DC Cir. 1972).Google Scholar
  140. United States v. Thevis, 665 F.2d 616 (5th Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  141. United States v. Watson, 587 F.2d 365 (7th Cir. 1978).Google Scholar
  142. Wagenaar, W.A. (1988). The proper seat: A Bayesian discussion of the position of expert witness. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 499–510.Google Scholar
  143. Wagenaar, W.A., & Boer, H.P.A. (1987). Misleading postevent information: Testing parameterized models of integration in memory. Acta Psychologica, 66, 291–306.Google Scholar
  144. Weinberg, H.I., & Baron, R.S. (1982). The dis-credible eyewitness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 60–67.Google Scholar
  145. Wells, G.L. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analyses of effects. Law and Human Beahvior, 10, 83–95.Google Scholar
  146. Wells, G.L., Ferguson, T.J., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688–696.Google Scholar
  147. Wells, G.L., & Leippe, M.R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identification? Memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 440–448.Google Scholar
  148. Wells, G.L., Leippe, M.R., & Ostrom, T.M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285–293.Google Scholar
  149. Wells, G.L., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness identifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776–784.Google Scholar
  150. Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R.C.L., & Ferguson, T.J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. Wells, G.L., Lindsay, R.C.L., & Tousignant, J.P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 275–285.Google Scholar
  152. Wells, G.L., & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  153. Wells, G.L., & Murray, D.M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G.L. Wells & E.F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 155–170). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  154. Wells, G.L., & Wright, E.F. (1983). Unpublished data, University of Alberta. Cited in Wells (1986).Google Scholar
  155. Whipple, G.M. (1918). The obtaining of information: Psychology of observation and report. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 217–248.Google Scholar
  156. Wickelgren, W.A. (1974). Single-trace fragility theory of memory dynamics. Memory & Cognition, 2, 775–780.Google Scholar
  157. Wigmore, J.H. (1909). Professor Münsterberg and the psychology of evidence. Illinois Law Review, 3, 399–445.Google Scholar
  158. Wilkinson, J. (1988). Context effects in children’s event memory. In M.M. Gruneberg, P.E. Morris, & R.N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 107–111). Chichester, England: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  159. Woocher, F.D. (1977). Did your eyes deceive you? Expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Stanford Law Review, 29, 960–1030.Google Scholar
  160. Woocher, F.D. (1986). Legal principles governing expert testimony by experimental psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 47–61.Google Scholar
  161. Woodhead, M.M. Baddeley, A.D., & Simmonds, D.C.V. (1979). On training people to recognize faces. Ergonomics, 22, 333–343.Google Scholar
  162. Yarmey, A.D., & Jones, H.P.T. (1983). Is eyewitness evidence a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 13–40). Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  163. Yarmey, A.D., & Kent, J. (1980). Eyewitness identification by elderly and young adults. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 359–371.Google Scholar
  164. Yuille, J.C. (1984). Research and teaching with police: A Canadian example. International Review of Applied Psychology, 33, 5–23.Google Scholar
  165. Yuille, J.C, & Cutshall, J.L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  166. Yuille, J.C, & McEwan, N.H. (1985). Use of hypnosis as an aid to eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 389–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  167. Zaragoza, M.S., Jamis, M., & McCloskey, M. (1987). Misleading postevent information and recall of the original event: Further evidence against the memory impairment hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 36–44.Google Scholar
  168. Zaragoza, M.S., & Koshmider, J.W. (1989). Misled subjects may know more than their performance implies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 24636–255.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kipling D. Williams
  • Elizabeth F. Loftus
  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations