PSYC FPX 4600 Assessment 1 Literature Review

PSYC FPX 4600 Assessment 1 Literature Review

Student Name

Capella University

PSYC FPX 4600 Research Methods in Psychology

Prof. Name:

Date

Eyewitness Statements Effect on Guilty Verdicts

Few things are as compelling as a person testifying in court and confidently identifying the defendant by pointing and stating, “That’s them!” This dramatic moment is often a pivotal point in many criminal cases depicted in movies and television shows. In reality, however, this critical moment of eyewitness testimony has led to numerous overturned convictions. Inaccurate identifications by eyewitnesses rank among the leading causes of wrongful convictions. The testimony of an eyewitness holds significant weight in the criminal justice system, yet it is inherently flawed. Extensive research has been conducted on human memory and its capacity to accurately recall specific details, including faces. Findings indicate that memory is fallible, which raises questions about the reliability of eyewitness accounts.

Over the years, various studies have sought to mitigate the risk of jurors wrongfully convicting individuals based solely on eyewitness testimony. One proposed solution involves assessing the credibility of a witness through proper memory testing before their testimony is presented to the jury. Additionally, educating jurors about the workings of human memory and the potential for inaccuracies, along with judicial instructions to consider all evidence, has been suggested and tested to reduce wrongful convictions and enhance the likelihood of punishing actual offenders.

Memory: Facts and Perception

Research conducted over the past 40 to 50 years has provided significant insights into the malleability of memory, demonstrating that memory is reconstructive in nature (Helm, 2021). Memory can be influenced by various factors, including imagination, beliefs, and perception. Contrary to the common belief that memory functions like a video recorder, a witness’s recollection is unlikely to be a complete and accurate representation of the event. Memories can be incomplete or erroneous due to their capacity to be altered or implanted. When a witness has an inaccurate memory, it is referred to as a false memory. False memories can arise from external influences such as leading questions, source misattribution (the inability to distinguish between the origins of a memory), change blindness (where a perpetrator is confused with a bystander), and spontaneity (where only the general idea of the memory is recalled without specific details).

When a witness provides genuinely false details about a memory, this is termed a persistent false memory (Loftus, 2019). Studies indicate that the beliefs and opinions of laypeople regarding memory do not align with those of scientific experts. Given the evidence that memory is changeable, the general public, including potential jurors, often overestimates the reliability of memory. In a survey of 1,838 individuals, 37.1% believed that a single confident witness is sufficient for a guilty verdict. Additionally, 63% strongly believed that memory functions like a video recorder, accurately capturing events for later review, and nearly 50% strongly believed that once a memory is formed, it cannot be altered (Helm, 2021). Despite the extensive research on memory malleability, particularly during “The Memory Wars,” it is clear that those tasked with evaluating memory and its credibility are often unaware of the significant risks and high likelihood of inaccuracies in eyewitness memory.

Confidence Does Not Equal Accuracy

John Wixted and Laura Mickes (2022) explain that jurors are likely to find a confident witness persuasive because, in everyday interactions, confidence often correlates with accuracy in many memory-related tasks. This expectation contributes to the fact that 70% of wrongful convictions are overturned due to DNA evidence, often stemming from a confident witness misidentifying the wrong individual. Jurors tend to place excessive emphasis on the witness’s confidence when evaluating their testimony, which can lead them to overlook other critical factors related to the witness, the testimony itself, and the overall case. Consequently, jurors frequently rely on the confidence of the witness as a measure of their credibility and reliability (Quigley-McBride et al., 2022).

Educating the Jury

Eyewitness testimony frequently serves as a crucial piece of evidence in trials, influencing judges and jurors in their determinations of a defendant’s guilt or innocence. However, studies have shown that jurors often lack an understanding of how memory functions. In response, researchers in eyewitness memory have explored the effectiveness of judicial instructions and educational tools to enhance the evaluation of eyewitness evidence by fact-finders (Saraiva et al., 2021).

Teaching aids have included information about factors that can contaminate eyewitness testimony. One such tool is the I-I-Eye (Identification, Interview, and Eyewitness Conditions), a PowerPoint presentation that has been tested and shown to yield positive results. Reason-based instruction has also been found to effectively counteract the effects of misinformation (Garrett et al., 2022).

Eyewitness Statements Effect on Guilty Verdicts

Scientists and experts have developed instructions that utilize psychological evidence to clarify the phenomenon of confidence inflation. These explanations aim to encourage jurors to reconsider the high regard often placed on eyewitness confidence.

Limitations

Numerous factors can contribute to eyewitness misidentification, complicating efforts to address these issues due to the various influences on a witness’s memory and testimony. Achieving a credible and accurate eyewitness identification of the guilty party begins with the procedures followed by law enforcement. There are established methods for conducting interviews and lineups that can minimize the risk of misidentification; however, many law enforcement agencies and court systems continue to resist necessary reforms (Rosenthal, 2020). Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence, particularly within the United States criminal justice system. Jennifer Lackey (2021) argues that it holds excessive power and credibility. She contends that eyewitness testimony is often given undue weight, distorting the evaluation of other evidence and resisting counter-evidence. In some cases, the testimony of a single individual, even in the absence of corroborating evidence, can be sufficient for a guilty verdict or even for capital punishment.

Theory, Hypothesis, and Variables

Lackey (2021) asserts that eyewitness testimony is a significant form of evidence in the U.S. criminal legal system. Due to the epistemic weight that eyewitness accounts carry, jurors are more inclined to convict based solely on this type of testimony, even when the eyewitness’s credibility is called into question. Helm (2021) suggests that one reason jurors misevaluate eyewitness evidence is their lack of accurate understanding of how memory functions. The hypothesis for this study posits that jurors who receive evidence-based instructions are more likely to accurately assess eyewitness testimony, thereby reducing the rate of wrongful convictions. The null hypothesis states that jury participants, even with evidence-based instructions, will show no change in their ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony correctly, which would continue to contribute to wrongful convictions. The independent variable in this study is eyewitness testimony, defined as the account provided by a victim or bystander regarding what they observed during a specific incident. The dependent variable is a guilty verdict, which is defined as a jury’s decision in a criminal trial that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged crime.

References

Albright, T. D., & Garrett, B. L. (2022). The law and science of eyewitness evidence. Boston University Law Review, 102(2), 511-629.

Garrett, B. L., Crozier, W. E., Modjadidi, K., Liu, A. J., Kafadar, K., Yaffe, J., & Dodson, C. S. (2023). Sensitizing jurors to eyewitness confidence using “reason-based” judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(1), 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000035

Helm, R. K. (2021). Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(4), 264-285. https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127211031018

Lackey, J. (2022). Eyewitness testimony and epistemic agency. Noûs, 56(3), 696-715. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12380

Loftus, E. F. (2019). Eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 498-503. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3542

Quigley-McBride, A., Crozier, W., Dodson, C., Teitcher, J., & Garrett, B. (2023). Supplemental material for face value? How jurors evaluate eyewitness face recognition ability. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000049.supp

PSYC FPX 4600 Assessment 1 Literature Review

Rosenthal, L. (2020). Eyewitness identification and the problematics of Blackstonian reform of the criminal law. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 110(2), 181-243. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362968

Saraiva, R., Bertoldo, G., Bjørndal, L. D., Bunghez, C., Lofthus, I. S., McGill, L., Richardson, S., & Stadel, M. (2022). Improving the evaluation of eyewitness evidence in legal decision-making: Testing an active versus passive teaching aid. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(3), 520-535. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3938

Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2022). Eyewitness memory is reliable, but the criminal justice system is not. Memory, 30(1), 67-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2021.1974485