Improving the evaluation of eyewitness evidence in legal decision-making: Testing an active versus passive teaching aid

被引:1
|
作者
Saraiva, Renan [1 ]
Bertoldo, Giulia [2 ]
Bjorndal, Ludvig Daae [3 ]
Bunghez, Catalina [4 ]
Lofthus, Ingvild Sando [3 ]
McGill, Lucy [5 ]
Richardson, Stephanie [6 ]
Stadel, Marie [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Portsmouth, Dept Psychol, Portsmouth, Hants, England
[2] Univ Padua, Dept Philosophy Sociol Educ & Appl Psychol, Padua, Italy
[3] Univ Oslo, Dept Psychol, Oslo, Norway
[4] West Univ Timisoara, Dept Psychol, Timisoara, Romania
[5] Trinity Coll Dublin, Dept Psychol, Dublin, Ireland
[6] Univ St Andrews, Sch Psychol & Neurosci, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland
[7] Univ Groningen, Dept Sociol, Groningen, Netherlands
关键词
eyewitness memory; eyewitness testimony; I-I-Eye; jury decision-making; teaching aids; JURORS; ENGAGEMENT; TESTIMONY; MEMORY;
D O I
10.1002/acp.3938
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Judges, jurors and other triers of fact often rely upon eyewitness evidence in criminal trials, but eyewitness memory is not always accurate and can sometimes be contaminated. The I-I-Eye is an evidence-based teaching aid designed to improve the evaluation of eyewitness evidence in legal settings. We aimed to further test the I-I-Eye and examine whether adding an active component to this teaching aid improves its effectiveness. Two experiments (N = 324 and N = 322) were conducted using a 2 (case strength: weak vs. strong) by 3 (teaching aid condition: control vs. passive vs. active) between-subjects design. Results of both experiments showed that the I-I-Eye can help jurors recognize strong eyewitness cases, although it was not particularly effective when the evidence was weak. It was also found that the active component did not further improve sensitivity. We discuss whether teaching aids such as the I-I-Eye may assist decision-makers in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence, while highlighting some of its main limitations found in our results.
引用
收藏
页码:520 / 535
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Quality of Evidence and Legal Decision-Making
    Jose Ganuza, Juan
    Gomez, Fernando
    Penalva, Jose
    AMERICAN LAW AND ECONOMICS REVIEW, 2022, 24 (01) : 327 - 368
  • [2] Teaching an Application of Bayes' Rule for Legal Decision-Making: Measuring the Strength of Evidence
    Satake, Eiki
    Murray, Amy Vashlishan
    JOURNAL OF STATISTICS EDUCATION, 2014, 22 (01):
  • [3] SERIAL EFFECTS OF EVIDENCE ON LEGAL DECISION-MAKING
    Enescu, Raluca
    Kuhn, Andre
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED TO LEGAL CONTEXT, 2012, 4 (02): : 99 - 118
  • [4] Improving Toxicity Testing For Better Decision-Making
    Fowle, John R., III
    CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS, 2015, 93 (28) : 31 - 31
  • [5] Active versus passive expression of preference in the control of multiple-robot decision-making
    Parker, CAC
    Zhang, H
    2005 IEEE/RSJ INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTELLIGENT ROBOTS AND SYSTEMS, VOLS 1-4, 2005, : 915 - 920
  • [6] Teaching evidence-based decision-making
    Sevdalis, N
    McCulloch, P
    SURGICAL CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2006, 86 (01) : 59 - +
  • [7] EVIDENCE EVALUATION IN COMPLEX DECISION-MAKING
    PENNINGTON, N
    HASTIE, R
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 51 (02) : 242 - 258
  • [8] Evidence Evaluation and Evidence Integration in Legal Decision-Making: Order of Evidence Presentation as a Moderator of Context Effects
    Charman, Steve D.
    Carbone, Jon
    Kekessie, Seyram
    Villalba, Daniella K.
    APPLIED COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, 2016, 30 (02) : 214 - 225
  • [9] Decision-making capacity: from testing to evaluation
    Hermann, Helena
    Feuz, Martin
    Trachsel, Manuel
    Biller-Andorno, Nikola
    MEDICINE HEALTH CARE AND PHILOSOPHY, 2020, 23 (02) : 253 - 259
  • [10] Decision-making capacity: from testing to evaluation
    Helena Hermann
    Martin Feuz
    Manuel Trachsel
    Nikola Biller-Andorno
    Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2020, 23 : 253 - 259