Improving the effectiveness of the Henderson instruction safeguard against unreliable eyewitness identification

References

• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Hamm, J. A. (2012). Jury instructions on witness identification. Court Review, 48, 48–53.
   Google Scholar
• Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s mTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commonwealth v. Gomes, 470 Mass. 352 (2015).
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311–332. doi: 10.1007/BF01067032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191. doi: 10.1007/BF01062972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55. doi: 10.1007/BF01064273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmarais, S., & Read, D. (2011). After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 200–210. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9232-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338–361. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042–1054. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dillon, M., Jones, A.M., Bergold, A.N., Hui, C., & Penrod, S. (2017). Examining the effectiveness of the Henderson eyewitness instructions. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2017.1235964
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. H. (1986). Cognitive psychologist as expert witnesses: A problem in professional ethics. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 29–45. doi: 10.1007/BF01044556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instructions on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A.M., Bergold, A.S., Dillon, M., & Penrod, S. (2017). Sensitizing jurors to factors influencing the accuracy of eyewitness identification: Assessing the effectiveness of the Henderson instructions. Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi:10.1007/s11292-016-9279-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann, J.K., & Smith, J.B. (2013). A multidimensional examination of jury composition, trial outcomes, and attorney preferences (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from http://www.uh.edu/~jlehman2/papers/lehmann_smith_jurycomposition.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909–959. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neal, T. M. S., Christiansen, A., Bornstein, B. H., & Robicheaux, T. R. (2012). The effects of mock jurors’ beliefs about eyewitness performance on trial judgments. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18, 49–64. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.587815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New Jersey Supreme Court. (2012). Expanded jury instructions. Retrieved August 11, 2014, from http://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/criminalcharges/idoutct.pdf
   Google Scholar
• New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A.3d 872 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Oregon v. Lawson, CF 080348 (2012).
   Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papailiou, A. P., Yokum, D. V., & Robertson, C. T. (2015). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PLoS ONE, 10, e0142695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessment of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 190–197. doi: 10.1002/acp.2895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023–1031. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539–554. doi: 10.1007/BF01044622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, C. (2011). Making the jurors the “experts”: The case for eyewitness identification jury instructions. Boston College Law Review, 52, 651–693.
   Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297. doi: 10.1023/A:1024890732059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steblay, N., Hosch, H., Culhane, S., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. (1986). Expert psychological testimony: Empirical and conceptual analyses of effects. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 83–95. doi: 10.1007/BF01044560
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wells, G., & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What US judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427–443. doi: 10.1002/acp.993
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar