Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony

Michael McCloskey, Howard E. Egeth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Responds to comments by G. L. Wells on the present authors' argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1065-1066
Number of pages2
JournalAmerican Psychologist
Volume39
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 1984

Keywords

  • role in evaluating eyewitness testimony, psychologists, reply to comments by G. L. Wells

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this