On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts.

  title={On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research. A new survey of the experts.},
  author={Saul M. Kassin and V. Anne Tubb and Harmon M. Hosch and Amina Memon},
  journal={The American psychologist},
  volume={56 5},
In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that the following phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent… 

Tables from this paper

Jury knowledge of eyewitness memory: can jurors use this knowledge in the courtroom?
As a result of Daubert, trial judges were advised to only admit an expert once they determine 1) that the testimony is supported with scientific evidence and 2) would assist the trier(s) of fact. The
Knowledge of Eyewitness Identification Issues: Survey of Public Defenders in New South Wales
Under the Evidence Act (Cth, 1995, NSW, 1995, Tas, 2001) the admissibility of expert evidence is determined not only by the qualifications and experience of the expert, but also by the probative
Toward a more informative psychological science of eyewitness evidence
Like Hugo Munsterberg, we believe that psychological science can inform the courts and police regarding eyewitness evidence. But 100 years into the enterprise, the body of knowledge acquired to date
Expert Testimony on Laboratory Witnesses
Based on the past three decades of diverse and extensive research on eyewitness memory issues, the courts are increasingly being asked to accept psychologists as experts on eyewitness performance.
Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation
Lay opinions concerning eyewitness topics were surveyed in three community samples of juror-eligible participants in Canada. The scientific reliability of these topics had been previously evaluated
Saying Versus judging: Assessing knowledge of eyewitness memory
Determining the nature of jurors' knowledge about factors influencing eyewitness memory is critical for judges' decisions to admit expert testimony. Past empirical research has primarily assessed
The effects of stress on eyewitness memory: A survey of memory experts and laypeople
The findings capture the current state of knowledge about stress effects on memory as reflected by sample of experts and laypeople, and highlight areas where further research and consensus would be valuable.
Eyewitness Identification Jury Instructions: Do They Enhance Evidence Evaluation?
Mistaken eyewitness identifications are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Even with procedural safeguards (e.g., cross-examination) in place, jurors still have difficulty evaluating the
Eyewitnesses as Guarantors of the Accuracy of the Gospel Traditions in the Light of Psychological Research
The attention of NT scholarship has been directed by Judith Redman to an important set of data relevant to the ongoing debate concerning the role eyewit nesses may have played in the formation of the


The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors.
To compare people's beliefs about eyewitness testimony with expert opinion, 79 college students and community adults filled out a questionnaire in which they reported whether they agreed or disagreed
The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory.
Eyewitness expert testimony informs a jury about psychological processes and accuracy-related variables in eyewitness testimony. Appropriately chosen testimony is not prejudicial, and it is on sound
Déjà vu all over again: Elliott's critique of eyewitness experts
Echoing McCloskey and Egeth (1983), and motivated by Kassin, Ellsworth, and Smith's (1989) survey of 63 eyewitness experts, Elliott (1993) recently attacked the use of psychological experts on
Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: the state of the law and the science.
The legal and scientific issues inherent in the use of expert psychological testimony on the factors that affect eyewitness reliability are examined, as well as the criteria that state and federal courts have used in determining whether to admit such testimony.
Mistaken Identification: The Eyewitness, Psychology and the Law
1. Eyewitness identification errors 2. The admissibility of expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification 3. Eyewitness experts in the courts of appeal 4. The scientific psychology
The malleability of eyewitness confidence: co-witness and perseverance effects
A theft was staged 70 times for pairs of eyewitnesses (N = 140) who then made a photo-lineup identification. Witnesses then received 1 of 9 types of information regarding the alleged identification
"Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience.
People viewed a security video and tried to identify the gunman from a photospread. The actual gunman was not in the photospread and all eyewitnesses made false identifications (n = 352). Following
The accuracy-confidence correlation in eyewitness testimony: limits and extensions of the retrospective self-awareness effect.
These findings define the limits of the RSA effect and provide mixed support for a self-perception account of this effect, as Kassin's (1985) finding that retrospective self-awareness increases the correlation between eyewitness accuracy and confidence is extended.
Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluation commonsense evaluations.
Although eyewitness identifications are among the most common forms of evidence presented in criminal trials, both archival studies and psychological research suggest that eyewitnesses are frequently
Psychological issues in eyewitness identification.
Contents: Preface. S.L. Sporer, G. Koehnken, R.S. Malpass, Introduction: 200 Years of Mistaken Identification. J.P. Lipton, Legal Aspects of Eyewitness Testimony. D.J. Narby, B.L. Cutler, S.D.