Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
W. Thompson, Edward Schumann (1987)
Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trialsLaw and Human Behavior, 11
N. Steblay, Jennifer Dysart, G. Wells (2011)
Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17
Richard Wise, M. Safer (2010)
A Comparison of What U.S. Judges and Students Know and Believe About Eyewitness TestimonyJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 40
C. Semmler, N. Brewer, A. Douglass (2012)
Jurors believe eyewitnesses
Nathan Weber, T. Perfect (2013)
Why Telling a Witness That It's OK to Say They Don't Know Is Good for Justice
J. Sauer, N. Brewer, Nathan Weber (2012)
Using confidence ratings to identify a target among foilsJournal of applied research in memory and cognition, 1
B. Cutler, Steven Penrod, H. Dexter (1990)
Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 14
Margaret Reardon, R. Fisher (2011)
Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions of eyewitness accuracyApplied Cognitive Psychology, 25
J. Sauer, N. Brewer (2015)
Confidence and Accuracy of Eyewitness Identification
Larry Heuer, Steven Penrod (1994)
Trial complexityLaw and Human Behavior, 18
D. Simons, C. Chabris (2011)
What People Believe about How Memory Works: A Representative Survey of the U.S. PopulationPLoS ONE, 6
R. Lindsay, G. Wells, C. Rumpel (1981)
Can People Detect Eyewitness-Identification Accuracy Within and Across Situations?Journal of Applied Psychology, 66
B. Cutler, Steven Penrod, Thomas Stuve (1988)
Juror decision making in eyewitness identification casesLaw and Human Behavior, 12
G. Wells (1993)
What do we know about eyewitness identification?The American psychologist, 48 5
N. Brewer, G. Wells (2009)
Obtaining and Interpreting Eyewitness Identification Test Evidence: The Influence of Police–Witness Interactions
Amy Bradfield, G. Wells (2000)
The Perceived Validity of Eyewitness Identification Testimony: A Test of the Five Biggers CriteriaLaw and Human Behavior, 24
Elizabeth Tenney, R. MacCoun, Barbara Spellman, R. Hastie (2006)
Calibration Trumps Confidence as a Basis for Witness CredibilityPsychological Science, 18
J. Sauer, N. Brewer, Nathan Weber (2008)
Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory.Journal of experimental psychology. General, 137 3
Richard Wise, M. Safer (2004)
What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimonyApplied Cognitive Psychology, 18
N. Brewer, A. Burke (2002)
Effects of Testimonial Inconsistencies and Eyewitness Confidence on Mock-Juror JudgmentsLaw and Human Behavior, 26
I. Horowitz, L. Forsterlee, Ian Brolly (1996)
Effects of trial complexity on decision makingJournal of Applied Psychology, 81
N. Brewer, Nathan Weber, D. Wootton, Stephen Lindsay (2012)
Identifying the Bad Guy in a Lineup Using Confidence Judgments Under Deadline PressurePsychological Science, 23
J. Sauer, Nathan Weber, N. Brewer (2012)
Using ecphoric confidence ratings to discriminate seen from unseen faces: The effects of retention interval and distinctivenessPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19
Laura Smalarz, G. Wells (2015)
Contamination of Eyewitness Self-Reports and the Mistaken-Identification ProblemCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 24
Compared to categorical identifications, culprit likelihood ratings (having the witness rate, for each lineup member, the likelihood that the individual is the culprit) provide a promising alternative for assessing a suspect’s likely guilt. Four experiments addressed 2 broad questions about the use of culprit likelihood ratings evidence by mock-jurors. First, are mock-jurors receptive to noncategorical forms of identification evidence? Second, does the additional information provided by ratings (relating to discrimination) affect jurors’ evaluations of the identification evidence? Experiments 1 and 1A manipulated confidence (90% vs. 50%) and discrimination (good, poor, no information) between participants. Evaluations were influenced by confidence, but not discrimination. However, a within-participant manipulation of discrimination (Experiment 2) demonstrated that evidence of good discrimination enhanced the persuasiveness of moderate levels of confidence, while poor discrimination reduced the persuasiveness of high levels of confidence. Thus, participants can interpret ratings-based evidence, but may not intuit the discrimination information when evaluating ratings for a single identification procedure. Providing detailed instructions about interpreting ratings produced clear discrimination effects when evaluating a single identification procedure (Experiment 3). Across 4 experiments, we found no evidence that mock-jurors perceived noncategorical identification evidence to be less informative than categorical evidence. However, jurors will likely benefit from instruction when interpreting ratings provided by a single witness.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Aug 13, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.