Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts
Version of Record online: 1 NOV 2005
Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Applied Cognitive Psychology
Volume 20, Issue 1, pages 115–129, January 2006
How to Cite
Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N. and Bradshaw, G. S. (2006), Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Appl. Cognit. Psychol., 20: 115–129. doi: 10.1002/acp.1171
- Issue online: 16 JAN 2006
- Version of Record online: 1 NOV 2005
Knowledge of factors affecting eyewitness accuracy was examined in a sample of jurors, judges and law enforcement professionals. Participants completed a survey in which they were asked to agree or disagree with 30 statements about eyewitness issues, and their responses were compared to a sample of eyewitness experts who completed the same survey. Participant responses differed significantly from responses of eyewitness experts. Jurors disagreed with the experts on 87% of the issues, while judges and law enforcement disagreed with the experts on 60% of the issues. The findings show a large deficiency in knowledge of eyewitness memory amongst jurors, judges and law enforcement personnel, indicating that the legal system may benefit from expert assistance in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.