14 The Perceived Credibility of Eyewitnesses

Question 1

Why should we look at the perceived credibility of witnesses?

Answer 1

• We are reliant upon how individuals within the investigative and legal process perceive eyewitnesses (e.g. Police officers, jurors, judges)
• Incongruence between subjective perceptions, and the objective accuracy/honesty of a witness may result in miscarriages of justice

Question 2

What can’t laypeople distinguish?

Answer 2

• But… Laypeople cannot distinguish between accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses (e.g. Wells et al.,)
• Or when a witness is telling the truth (bond et al.,)

Question 3

Where do we want to be in terms of the perceived credibility of witnesses?

Answer 3

We want there to be congruence between the objective and subjective quality of a subjective account

Question 4

What is the evaluation of credibility?

Answer 4

• Discern on whether they are being honest

- On the other hand, if we decide they are honest: are they accurately recalling what they observed?

Question 5

What is the two-factor model of credibility and what does it explain?

Answer 5

It seems to explain perceptions of credibility

1. Perceived honesty of the witness (credibility)
2. Perceived cognitive competence of the witness (reliability)

Question 6

What differences are there in perceived credibility in different ages?

Answer 6

• In contexts where there is a focus upon the memory of the eyewitness, older children and adults tend to perceived as more credible than younger children (e.g. Witnesses to a robbery)
• In contexts where witness veracity is salient, younger children tend to be perceived as more credible than older children and adults (e.g. Sexual abuse allegations)

Question 7

Which age groups is less likely to lie?

Answer 7

Children less ability to lie than older children, therefore, more credible

Question 8

Why are we bad at assessing eyewitness accuracy?

Answer 8

Ideally, we want evaluators like jurors to be sensitive to eyewitnesses issues - we want them to be influenced by factors which are known to affect eyewitness memory and not influence by factors that do not effect eyewitness memory

Question 9

What requirements did Cutler et al., propose to be sensitive?

Answer 9

(1) Knowledge of eyewitness factors

(2) Integrate this knowledge

Question 10

What did Cutler et al., (1989) propose why jurors struggle with knowledge and integration

Answer 10

Knowledge and integration are vital to dissecting information

1. Jurors lack knowledge
2. Jurors also exhibit difficulty integrating knowledge

Question 11

What was the study by Benten et al., (2006) about how much is understood by eyewitness accounts?

Answer 11

Surveys

• compared with eyewitness experts’ responses in an earlier survey
• 30 statements about eyewitness issues
• 3 response options (generally false, I don’t know, Generally true)

results:

• Jurors and experts only agreed on 4/30 items (i.e. 26/30 or 87% disagreement)
• Judges and experts agreed on 12/30 items (i.e. 60% disagreement)
• Law enforcement professionals and experts agreed on 12/30 items (i.e. 60% disagreement)

Question 12

Is eyewitness “common sense”?

Answer 12

Problems with methodology: but there seems to be little correspondence between survey responses and behaviours (Alonzo & Lane, 2009)

Question 13

Is there a failed integration in determining eyewitness accounts?

Answer 13

There is a consistent pattern whereby jurors’ knowledge does not seem to influence their decisions
- E.g. whilst jurors seemed to understand the negative effect of selecting non-similar foil suspects in a line-up and biased line-up instructions. They failed to account for these factors when making decisions about the case

Jurors may not even know what influences their decisions

Question 14

What are the factors that influence perceived credibility and what is its application?

Answer 14

1. Consistency
2. Confidence

Application: repeated events witnesses

Question 15

What is consistency in eyewitnesses accounts?

Answer 15

Considered a hallmark of witness credibility

-If inconsistencies arise it indicates a general deficit in the memory of the eyewitness or dishonesty

Question 16

What are the types of inconsistencies?

Answer 16

Contradictions: the previous account contradicted in a court account
Omissions: the Previous account included the information, but was omitted from statement in court (said initially, not mentioned later)
Additions/reminiscence: the previous account did not include the information it was added in court (not said initially, stated later in court)

Question 17

What was Powell et al., (2016) study on consistency?

Answer 17

Efforts to highlight inconsistencies and their importance to the case was coded

Central: An inconsistency that is about something central to proving that the offence occurred
Peripheral: an inconsistency that is peripheral to proving the offence occurred

Results:

• Defence lawyers were more likely to target inconsistencies when the quality of the police interview was low, and when more questions were asked
• Contradictions (98.4%), addition (50.4%) and Omission (29.3%)

Question 18

Explain the study related to jury stimulation and consistency?

Answer 18

Berman and Cutler (1996)

Findings:

• Conviction rate (main effect of consistency)
• Perceived credibility: consistent>novel>contradictory witness (any type)
• when the eyewitness is consistent, mock jurors convict the defendant about 70% of the time and as soon as inconsistencies arise that rate drops dramatically

Question 19

Why may it be problematic to use inconsistencies to discredit an entire testimony? e.g. Fisher et al., (2009)

Answer 19

• Inconsistencies (especially contradictions are much more indicative of memory accuracy at the level of the inconsistent detail)
• The correlations between the presence of contradictions and the overall accuracy of a statement are low

Question 20

What does it mean by independent of components in the accuracy of inconsistent details?

Answer 20

complex events like crime are processed independently so even if a witness is inconsistent so this doesn’t provide any information about another detail

Question 21

What are two factors of the accuracy of inconsistent details?

Answer 21

Retrieval process: recall is a function of the retrieval process

Dissociation: common versus unique mental processes

• Eyewitness accuracy and consistency are not the same processes - some variables do affect these outcomes very differently
• The delay between observing crime and recalling observations will recall a lot less detail
• Opposite in eyewitness accounts

Question 22

Why do you think that liars appear more consistent than they are?

Answer 22

• Rehearsal

- Different retrieval strategies: repeat vs reconstruct hypothesis

Question 23

How can you throw liars off?

Answer 23

Unanticipated questions can throw liars off

Question 24

Explain confidence in eyewitnesses accounts?

Answer 24

Eyewitness confidence tends to exert large effects upon jurors’ decisions about a case and perceptions of witness credibility
-lack of confidence is a poor indicator of eyewitness memory in a trial

Question 25

What is the problem with relying upon eyewitness confidence?

Answer 25

The problem of relying upon eyewitness confidence at trial: confidence inflation (Semmler et al., 2012)

Question 26

What is confidence inflation and its factors?

Answer 26

It can increase or decrease based on experience

• Post-identification feedback
• Co-witness discussion
• Repeated questioning: artificially inflates confidence
• Trial preparation procedures

Question 27

Which factor is confidence inflation influenced by and explain the related study?

Answer 27

Post-identification feedback

Luus & wells (1994) study

• Got students under false pretence and mock theft occurred
• Participants were asked individually who they thought committed the crime and received feedback
• 3 conditions: no feedback, same individual chosen, different chosen

Self-report: significantly higher when same vs no feedback, lower in different vs no feedback

Phase 2:

findings: significantly higher in same vs no feedback
- perceived accuracy: detail, believability and persuasiveness

Question 28

What was the result in Luus & Wells (1994) study?

Answer 28

Feedback about the identification position directly affects confidence which in turn affects rating

Question 29

What are the Deck & Paterson (2019) credibility and repeated events study?

Answer 29

Repeated events tend to be:

• inconsistent
• have low levels of confidence in their memory
• tend to provide accounts with low levels of details

Phase 1: Adaptation into the typical child paradigm
truth-tellers vs liars: fabricate a convincing account of that session

Phase 2: a new group of participants

Question 30

What does the study by Deck & Paterson (2019) suggest?

Answer 30

This study is suggesting that repeated events tend to be inconsistent and have a low level of confidence in their memory and liars end up being perceived as more credible

Question 31

What were the findings of the Deck & Paterson (2019) study?

Answer 31

Findings: 
-Perceived credibility
	o Repeated events < single events witnesses
	o Repeated events < Liars
-Perceived honesty
	o Repeated events witnesses < Single event witnesses
	o Repeated events < Liars
- Perceived cognitive competence
        o Repeated events < Liars

Question 32

What does credibility consist of?

Answer 32

Perceived honesty and cognitive competence

Question 33

What is necessary to assess cognitive competence well?

Answer 33

Jurors must have knowledge of eyewitnesses factors and integrate these factors into their decisions

Question 34

What does the presence of inconsistencies mean?

Answer 34

The presence of inconsistencies is commonly used to challenge the overall credibility of a witness… However, inconsistencies are not necessarily an indicator of memory unreliability or dishonesty

Question 35

How does confidence affect credibility in eyewitnesses?

Answer 35

Confidence eyewitnesses are perceived as more credible than witnesses lower in confidence

Question 36

What is the post-identification feedback effect, originally demonstrated by Wells and Bradfield (1998)?

Answer 36

refers to the way in which witness self-reports are distorted by feedback to the witnesses that suggests that their identifications were accurate or mistaken.

Question 37

What type of witnesses are perceived as less credible

Answer 37

Repeated events witnesses may be perceived as less credible than both single events witnesses and liars