Keep it simple: Concise instructions may help jurors devalue eyewitness courtroom confidence when evaluating suspect guilt

ABSTRACT

Recent research indicates that mock jurors place too much weight on eyewitness confidence expressed in the courtroom rather than confidence expressed immediately after an identification, though eyewitness identification research clearly shows that only the latter is indicative of guilt. Researchers rarely present mock jurors with photo arrays, which could help them to better understand the eyewitness’ point of view. Across three experiments, potential jurors viewed photo arrays and hypothetical eyewitness confidence statements described as coming either immediately after the identification or much later in the courtroom. In Experiment 1, suspect guilt was rated as more likely when immediate or courtroom confidence was high. Experiment 2 reduced suspect guilt estimates associated with high courtroom confidence by providing partial Henderson instructions. Experiment 3 replicated this effect and found that simple directives from an eyewitness identification expert were even more beneficial in helping potential jurors correctly evaluate confidence based on timing. We recommend that eyewitness experts be allowed to instruct jurors not to trust confidence expressed at trial.

KEYWORDS:

• Perceived eyewitness confidence
• confidence timing
• eyewitness testimony
• juror decision-making
• jury education

Data availability statement

All data are available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/qyrfk/?view_only=374db9d3e1fd4c8488252f7c35ace38d.

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/qyrfk/?view_only=374db9d3e1fd4c8488252f7c35ace38d registrations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 All participants viewed the same four lineups in the same order, and all participants within a given condition viewed the same order of confidence statements. In other words, we did not randomize or counterbalance the order of trials because all trials for a given participant were in the same condition due to our between-subjects design.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by National Institute of Justice: [grant no 2018-14001].