Eyewitnesses who engage in immediate recall are not perceived as more credible

References

• Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(14), 1171–1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01200.x
   Google Scholar
• Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.669
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170 doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors’ evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499074 doi:10.1007/BF01499074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015380522722
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., & Hupfeld, R. M. (2004). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and witness group identity on mock-juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02558.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brock, P., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Examining the cognitive interview in a double-test paradigm. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5(1–2), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414992
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, J. C., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility The reversed testing effect. Psychological Science, 20(1), 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/%2Fj.1467-9280.2008.02245.x doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Connolly, D. A., Price, H. L., Lavoie, J. A., & Gordon, H. M. (2008). Perceptions and predictors of children’s credibility of a unique event and an instance of a repeated event. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 92–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9083-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, A., Quas, J. A., & Cleveland, K. C. (2014). The emotional child witness: Effects on juror decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 32(6), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2153
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology and the law. 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(3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067032 doi:10.1007/BF01067032
   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(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064273 doi:10.1007/BF01064273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellison, L. (2001). The mosaic art?: Cross-examination and the vulnerable witness. Legal Studies, 21(3), 353–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2001.tb00172.x
   Google Scholar
• Erdelyi, M. H. (2010). The ups and downs of memory. American Psychologist, 65(7), 623–633. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evidence Act, New South Wales. (1995). ss. 32, 34. https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-1995-025
   Google Scholar
• Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool. Law and Human Behavior, 33(4), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9146-8 doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9146-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2012). Protecting against misleading post-event information with a self-administered interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(4), 568–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Cohen, G., & Holland, H. (1986). Eyewitness responses to leading and misleading questions under the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science & Administration, 14(1), 31–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. A., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). The effects of varied retrieval cues on reminiscence in eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(6), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1232
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, L., Gabbert, F., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). From laboratory to the street: Capturing witness memory using the self-administered interview. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02015.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, L., Gabbert, F., Fisher, R. P., & Jamieson, K. (2014). Protecting and enhancing eyewitness memory: The impact of an initial recall attempt on performance in an investigative interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horry, R., Hughes, C., Sharma, A., Gabbert, F., & Hope, L. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the Self-Administered interview©: Quantity and accuracy of details reported on initial and subsequent retrieval attempts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 1083–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3753
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, C. A., Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Hope, L. (2020). An examination of the Self-Administered Interview as a verbal veracity assessment tool. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(5), 1083–1091. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, E. E., Palmer, P. G., & Bandy, A. D. (2015). The effect of inconsistency on evaluations of a second eyewitness: It depends on who testifies first. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(6), 814–829. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1015205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krix, A. C., Sauerland, M., Lorei, C., & Rispens, I. (2015). Consistency across repeated eyewitness interviews: Contrasting police detectives’ beliefs with actual eyewitness performance. PloS one, 10(2), e0118641. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krix, A. C., Sauerland, M., Raymaekers, L. H., Memon, A., Quaedflieg, C. W., & Smeets, T. (2015). Eyewitness evidence obtained with the self-administered interview© is unaffected by stress. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1989). Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses: The influence of jurors’ preconceptions and witness behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 13(2), 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055919
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors’ verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 362–384). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(5), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01151.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O'Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13(3), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Jurimetrics Journal, 15(3), 188.
   Google Scholar
• Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luus, C., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714–723. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.714 doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackay, T. L., & Paterson, H. M. (2015). How does timing of recall affect eyewitness memory and psychological distress? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30(4), 242–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-014-9156-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., Yamamoto, S., & Fenwick, K. L. (2015). Educating Canadian jurors about the not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder defence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 47(3), 226–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuo, K., & Itoh, Y. (2016). Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Memon, A., Zaragoza, M., Clifford, B. R., & Kidd, L. (2010). Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events. Law and Human Behavior, 34(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9172-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odinot, G., Memon, A., La Rooy, D., & Millen, A. (2013). Are two interviews better than one? Eyewitness memory across repeated cognitive interviews. PloS one, 8(10), e76305. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076305
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oeberst, A. (2012). If anything else comes to mind … better keep it to yourself? Delayed recall is discrediting – unjustifiably. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-011-9282-4 doi:10.1037/h0093966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oeberst, A. (2015). How good are future lawyers in judging the accuracy of reminiscent details? The estimation-observation gap in real eyewitness accounts. The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2015.03.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson, H. M., Anderson, D. W., & Kemp, R. I. (2013). Cautioning jurors regarding co-witness discussion: The impact of judicial warnings. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(3), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.631539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson, H. M., Eijkemans, H., & Kemp, R. I. (2015). Investigating the impact of delayed administration on the efficacy of the self-administered interview. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(2), 307–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.947670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pozzulo, J. D., & O’Neill, M. C. (2012). Juror decision making when a witness makes multiple identification decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(5), 1192–1217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00883.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, D. F., Jurden, F. H., Lindsay, R., & Keeney, J. M. (2003). Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01903.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Effects of mood and emotion on juror processing and judgments. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20(4), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035000
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tait, D., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2017). The effect of deliberation on jury verdicts. In D. Tait & J. Goodman-Delahunty (Eds.), Juries, science and popular culture in the age of terror: The case of the Sydney Bomber (pp. 235–248). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Voogt, A., Klettke, B., Thomson, D. M., & Crossman, A. (2020). The impact of extralegal factors on perceived credibility of child victims of sexual assault. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(9), 823–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2020.1742336
   Google Scholar
• Vredeveldt, A., Hildebrandt, A., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2015). Acknowledge, repeat, rephrase, elaborate: Witnesses can help each other remember more. Memory, 24(5), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1042884
   Google Scholar
• Wang, E., Paterson, H., & Kemp, R. (2014). The effects of immediate recall on eyewitness accuracy and susceptibility to misinformation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(7), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.854788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A, & Safer, M. A. (2010). A comparison of what U.S. judges and students know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(6), 1400–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00623.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar