The research described in this manuscript was funded by a National Science Foundation grant (No. SES-8411721) to Steven Penrod. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Brian L. Cutler, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, North Miami Campus, North Miami, FL 33181.
Nonadversarial Methods for Sensitizing Jurors to Eyewitness Evidence
Version of Record online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 20, Issue 14, pages 1197–1207, August 1990
How to Cite
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R. and Penrod, S. D. (1990), Nonadversarial Methods for Sensitizing Jurors to Eyewitness Evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20: 1197–1207. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1990.tb00400.x
- Issue online: 31 JUL 2006
- Version of Record online: 31 JUL 2006
Tested the effects, on juror decision making, of court-appointed expert testimony and judge's instructions designed to sensitize jurors to eyewitness evidence. Subjects (N= 144) viewed a videotaped trial in which the primary evidence was the testimony of and identification by an eyewitness. Three levels of expert advice (court-appointed expert, judge's instructions, no expert advice) were crossed with two levels of witnessing and identification conditions and two levels of witness confidence The court-appointed expert produced skepticism toward the identification but did not improve juror sensitivity to the eyewitness evidence. The judge's instructions produced neither skepticism or sensitization effects.