Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:24:33.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3.2 - Eyewitness Testimony

from Part III - Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2021

By
Geralda Odinot ,
Eva A. J. van Rosmalen  and
Annelies Vredeveldt
Edited by
Jennifer M. Brown  and
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Jennifer M. Brown
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Miranda A. H. Horvath
Affiliation:
University of Suffolk
Get access

Summary

Eyewitnesses play a significant role in criminal investigations and legal processes worldwide. Just like any other type of forensic evidence, eyewitness evidence has a margin of error. These errors, caused by numerous factors, affect the validity of eyewitness testimony. Some factors emerge at the moment of witnessing, while others occur afterwards. One of the main challenges for legal practitioners is to base their interviewing practices and decision-making on solid scientific evidence. Insight into the cognitive processes of a witness is vital for understanding why people make mistakes. Therefore, our chapter starts with a brief explanation of the organization of memory. Then, using a realistic example, we describe several variables that affect witness testimony, while loosely following the three stages of memory: witnessing, retention and retrieval. Next, we discuss various factors affecting judges’ and jurors’ assessments of witness testimony, which in turn influence legal decision-making. Finally, we summarize our findings and make some concluding remarks.

Keywords

Eyewitness MemoryEyewitness TestimonyLegal Decision-makingSystem Variables Vs Estimator VariablesEvidence-based Knowledge in Judicial System
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Forensic Psychology , pp. 353 - 368
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, R., & Koriat, A. (2011). Response latency as a predictor of the accuracy of children’s reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(4), 406–417.Google Scholar
American National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Committee on identifying the needs of the forensic sciences community & national research council. Author.Google Scholar
Amsterdam Laboratory for Legal Psychology. (2020). Eyewitness memory in cross-cultural contexts. https://allp.nl/cases/eyewitness-memory-in-cross-cultural-contexts/Google Scholar
Anakwah, N., Horselenberg, H., Hope, L., Amankwah-Poku, M., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2020). Cross-cultural differences in eyewitness memory reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 504–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 115–129.Google Scholar
Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C., & Weber, N. (2006). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency. Law and Human Behavior, 30(1), 31–50.Google Scholar
Brewer, N., Potter, R., Fisher, R. P., Bond, N., & Luszcz, M. A. (1999). Beliefs and data on the relationship between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13(4), 297–313.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dando, C. J., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). Victims and witnesses of crime: Police officers’ perceptions of interviewing practices. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 13(1), 59–70.Google Scholar
De Poot, C. J., Bokhorst, R. J., Van Koppen, P. J., & Muller, E. R. (2004). Recherche portret: Over dilemma’s in de opsporing. Kluwer.Google Scholar
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687–706.Google Scholar
Dubelaar, M. J. (2014). Betrouwbaar getuigenbewijs: Totstandkoming en waardeing van strafrechtelijke getuigenverklaringen in perspectief (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Russano, M. B. (2009). Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(3), 194–221.Google Scholar
Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(1), 35–66.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In Davis, G., Lloyd-Bostock, S., McMurran, M., & Wilson, C. (Eds.), Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 21–28). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Psychological Science, 20(1), 16–19.Google Scholar
Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2018). Suggestibility in the courtroom. In Otgaar, H. & Howe, M. L. (Eds.), Finding the truth in the courtroom. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Confrey, M. (2018). Witness testimony. In Griffiths, A., & Milne, R. (Eds.), The psychology of criminal investigation: From theory to practice. Routledge.Google Scholar
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool. Law and Human Behavior, 33(4), 298–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting against misleading post-event information with the Self-Administered Interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 568–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 533–543.Google Scholar
Garrett, B. L. (2008). Judging innocence. Columbia Law Review, 108(1), 55–142.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, R. B., & Mangun, G. R. (2018). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind. Norton.Google Scholar
Gilbert, J. A. E., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(6), 723–739.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Hartwig, M. (2005). Eyewitness testimony: Tracing the beliefs of Swedish legal professionals. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(5), 709–727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, A., & Rachlew, A. (2018). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: The application of psychology. In Griffiths, A. & Milne, R. (Eds.), The psychology of criminal investigation. From theory to practice. (pp. 154–178). Routledge.Google Scholar
Gustafsson, P. U., Lindholm, T., & Jönsson, F. U. (2019). Predicting accuracy in eyewitness testimonies with memory retrieval effort and confidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00703Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.Google Scholar
Hewitt, M. (2001). Nine force attrition study. Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.Google Scholar
Hope, L., Gabbert, F., Fisher, R. J., & Jamieson, K. (2014). Protecting and enhancing eyewitness memory: The impact of an initial recall attempt on performance in an investigative interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 304–313.Google Scholar
Houston, K. A., Hope, L., Memon, A., & Read, J. D. (2013). Expert testimony on eyewitness evidence: In search of common sense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 31(5), 637–651.Google Scholar
Innocence Project. (2017). DNA exonerations in the United States. https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/Google Scholar
Innocence Project. (2019). www.innocenceproject.org/Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K. (2006). Memory and reality. American Psychologist, 61(8), 760–771.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(1), 42–52.Google Scholar
Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(3), 323–330.Google Scholar
Lindholm, T., Jönsson, F. U., & Liuzza, M. T. (2018). Retrieval effort cues predict eyewitness accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 24(4), 534–542.Google ScholarPubMed
Lindsay, R. C., Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M. R. (2008). How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 32(6), 526–535.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., Coan, J., & Pickrell, J. E. (1996). Lost in a shopping mall: An experience with controversial research. Ethics & Behavior, 7(3), 271–284.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, R. (1987). Some facts about ‘weapon focus’. Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55–62.Google Scholar
MacLin, O. H., MacLin, M. K., & Malpass, R. S. (2001). Race, arousal, attention, exposure and delay: An examination of factors moderating face recognition. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 7(1), 134–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mapes, A., De Poot, C. J., & Kloosterman, A. (2014). De rol van DNA bij het vinden van een dader. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 56(3), 29–46.Google Scholar
Mapes, A., Kloosterman, A. D., & De Poot, C. J. (2015). DNA in the criminal justice system: The DNA succes story in perspective. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(4), 851–856.Google Scholar
McNally, R. J. (2003). Recovering memories of trauma: A view from the laboratory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(1), 32–35.Google Scholar
Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & Le Doux, J. (2000). Fear memories require protein synthesis in the amygdala for reconsolidation after retrieval. Nature, 406, 722–726.Google Scholar
Netherlands Register of Court Experts. (2020). Standards Legal Psychology (009.0) (Version 2.0). www.nrgd.nl/binaries/Standards%20Legal%20Psychology%202.0%20def_tcm39–421076.pdfGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, M., & Kebbell, M. (2014). Interview techniques in International Criminal Court and Tribunals. In Bull, R. (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 91–101). Springer.Google Scholar
Odinot, G. (2008). Eyewitness confidence: The relation between accuracy and confidence in episodic memory (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Odinot, G., Boon, B., & Wolters, L. (2015). Het episodisch geheugen en getuigenverhoor. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 57(3), 279–299.Google Scholar
Odinot, G., Memon, A., La Rooy, D., & Millen, A. (2013). Are two interviews better than one? Eyewitness memory across repeated cognitive interviews. PLoS One, 8(10), e76305.Google Scholar
Odinot, G., & Wolters, G. (2006). Repeated recall, retention interval and the accuracy-confidence relation in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 973–985.Google Scholar
Odinot, G., Wolters, G., & Van Giezen, A. (2012). Accuracy, confidence and consistency in repeated recall of events. Psychology, Crime and Law, 19(7), 1–14.Google Scholar
Odinot, G., Wolters, G., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2009). Eyewitness memory of a supermarket robbery: A case study of accuracy and confidence after 3 months. Law and Human Behavior, 33(6), 506–514.Google Scholar
Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witnesses talk: A survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12(2), 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penrod, S. D., Loftus, E. F., & Winkler, J. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony: A psychological perspective. In Kerr, N. L. & Bray, R. M. (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 119–168). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Powell, M. B., & Bartholomew, T. (2003). Interviewing and assessing clients from different cultural backgrounds: Guidelines for all forensic professionals. In Carson, D. & Bull, R. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (pp. 625–643). John Wiley.Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L. (2012). Adaptive constructive processes and the future of memory. American Psychologist, 67(8), 603–613.Google Scholar
Schacter, D. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Memory and law: What can cognitive neuroscience contribute? Nature Neuroscience, 16(2), 119–123.Google Scholar
Smeets, T., Candel, I., & Merckelbach, H. (2004). Accuracy, completeness, and consistency of emotional memories. The American Journal of Psychology, 117(4), 595–610.Google Scholar
Spencer, J. R. (2016). Adversarial vs inquisitorial systems: Is there still such a difference? The International Journal of Human Rights, 20(5), 601–616.Google Scholar
Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14(5), 455–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Koppen, P. J., & Penrod, S. D. (2003). Adversarial or inquisitorial. In van Koppen, P. J. & Penrod, S. D. (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 1–19). Plenum.Google Scholar
Van Oorsouw, K., & Merckelbach, H. (2012). The effects of alcohol on crime‐related memories: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(1), 82–90.Google Scholar
Van Oorsouw, K., Merckelbach, H., & Smeets, T. (2015). Alcohol intoxication impairs memory and increases suggestibility for a mock crime: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(4), 493–501.Google Scholar
Vredeveldt, A., Charman, S. D., Den Blanken, A., & Hooydonk, M. (2018). Effects of cannabis on eyewitness memory: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(4), 420–428.Google Scholar
Vredeveldt, A., Groen, R. N., Ampt, J. E., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). When discussion between eyewitnesses helps memory. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22(2), 242–259.Google Scholar
Vredeveldt, A., Hildebrandt, A., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2016). Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more. Memory, 24(5), 669–682.Google Scholar
Vredeveldt, A., Van Deuren, S., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2019). Remembering with a stranger: Comparing acquainted and unacquainted pairs in collaborative eyewitness interviews. Memory, 27(10), 1390–1403.Google Scholar
Vredeveldt, A., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2018). Recounting a common experience: On the effectiveness of instructing eyewitness pairs. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vredeveldt, A., Van Koppen, P. J., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). The inconsistent suspect: A systematic review of consistency in truth tellers and liars. In Bull, R. (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 183–207). Springer.Google Scholar
Wagenaar, W. A., & van der Schrier, J. H. (1996). Face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(4), 321–332.Google Scholar
Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 427–443.Google Scholar
Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A., & Maro, C. M. (2011). What U.S. law enforcement officers know and believe about eyewitness factors, eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 488–500.Google Scholar
Wixted, J. T., Mickes, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2018). Rethinking the reliability of eyewitness memory. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 13(3), 324–335.Google Scholar
Woolnough, P. S., & MacLeod, M. D. (2001). Watching the birdie watching you: Eyewitness memory for actions using CCTV recordings of actual crimes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15(4), 395–411.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B., Memon, A., Skagerberg, E. M., & Gabbert, F. (2009). When eyewitnesses talk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 174–178.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×