eCite Digital Repository

Mock-juror evaluations of traditional and ratings-based eyewitness identification evidence


Sauer, JD and Palmer, MA and Brewer, N, Mock-juror evaluations of traditional and ratings-based eyewitness identification evidence, Law and Human Behavior, 41, (4) pp. 375-384. ISSN 0147-7307 (2017) [Refereed Article]

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2017 American Psychological Association

DOI: doi:10.1037/lhb0000235


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.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:jurors, jury, eyewitness evidence, confidence, ratings, juror evaluations of evidence
Research Division:Psychology
Research Group:Applied and developmental psychology
Research Field:Forensic psychology
Objective Division:Expanding Knowledge
Objective Group:Expanding knowledge
Objective Field:Expanding knowledge in psychology
UTAS Author:Sauer, JD (Associate Professor Jim Sauer)
UTAS Author:Palmer, MA (Associate Professor Matt Palmer)
ID Code:114493
Year Published:2017
Web of Science® Times Cited:8
Deposited By:Psychology
Deposited On:2017-02-16
Last Modified:2018-07-10

Repository Staff Only: item control page