Sociology SOCI 5310 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Eyewitness Testimony, Eyewitness Identification, Elizabeth Loftus
20 Oct 2019
School
Department
Course
Professor
LECTURE 13
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT
Aims:
· To apprehend the use of social psychology theories and principles in court and felony settings
Objectives:
· To discuss the persuasiveness of eyewitness testimony.
· To describe other elements affecting juror’s judgments
Section V: Social Psychology Applied
Social Psychology Applied isn't always a separate phase as a long way as syllabus of social psychology is concerned.
Instead it's miles primarily based at the theories and standards of social psychology that we have studied to date in
special sections of our syllabus, for example, man or woman perception, mindset formation, persuasion, interpersonal
interactions, and so forth. Although understanding of social psychology can be carried out in a diffusion of social
settings, and fields of human interplay, we are able to especially speak two areas wherein this knowledge could be
very correctly carried out:
· Social Psychology in Clinics
· Social Psychology in courtroom
Social Psychology in Court Chapter Summary
• This bankruptcy focuses on social mental elements of the legal system.
• The lecture begins with an exam of research on eyewitness identification.
• Eyewitness identifications are regularly misguided.
• Two classes of variables that have an impact on those identifications are estimator variables, which subject
the eyewitness and the situation (for example, viewing situations, arousal, weapon consciousness, personal-
race bias, and retention c programming language) and system variables beneath control of the felony machine,
as an instance, suggestive thinking and lineup tactics.
• Factors that make for most efficient eyewitness identity are diagnosed.
• The situations beneath which fake confessions arise, and underneath which people might also come to
consider their personal fake confessions, are tested.
• Other factors that have an impact on juror choice making, which include defendant characteristics (like
elegance and race), and similarity to jury are reviewed.
Introduction
Several questions hobby social psychologists running in courtroom placing, as an instance, how influential is
eyewitness testimony? How trustworthy are eyewitness reminiscences? What makes a reputable witness? Such
questions fascinate attorneys, judges, and defendants. And they are ques-tons to which social psychology can suggest
answers, as maximum regulation faculties have recognized when they rent professors of "regulation and social
science." There is an extended list of subjects pertinent to each social psychology and regulation. For example:
· How do a subculture's norms and traditions have an impact on its prison decisions?
· What prison processes strike people as fair? How essential are perceptions of the chose’s or mediator's
neutrality and honesty?
· How do we, and have to we, attribute obligation of against the law to the defendant? Studying the criminal
device enables social psychologists see how behavior happens in complex, personally relevant, and emotion-laden
contests.
• Two closely researched units of factors:
– Features of the court docket drama that can influence jurors' judgments of a defendant
– Characteristics of each the jurors and their deliberations.
Although many factors of courtroom and felony device are of hobby to social psychologists, we can be simply
discussing two predominant topics because of scarcity of time and area:
o Eyewitness testimony, and
o Other influences on judgment of jury.
Eyewitness testimony: Persuasiveness
• Several studies have indicated that eyewitness testimony may be very persuasive. At the University of
Washington, Elizabeth Loftus (1974, 1979) determined that individuals who had "seen" had been certainly
believed, even if their testimony turned into proven to be useless.
• When college students were presented with a hypothetical robbery-homicide case with circumstantial
evidence but no eyewitness testimony, handiest 18% voted for conviction. Other students received the equal
records but with the addition of an unmarried eyewitness and seventy-two% voted for conviction. For a 3rd
organization, the defense legal professional discredited this testimony (the witness’s eye sight turned into
susceptible and was now not wearing glasses).
• Did this discrediting lessen the effect of the testimony? In this case, no longer plenty: 68% nevertheless voted
for conviction.
• Later experiments discovered that discrediting may additionally reduce quite the variety of responsible votes.
But until contradicted by means of another eyewitness, a bright eyewitness account is tough to erase from
jurors' minds. That allows explain why; as compared to crook instances lacking people who have eyewitness
testimony are much more likely to provide convictions.
How accurate are eyewitnesses?
• The persuasiveness of eyewitness leads us to a very important question and that is the accuracy of eyewitness
testimony.
• Is eyewitness testimony, in fact, often misguided? Stories abound of harmless human beings who've wasted
years in jail due to the testimony of eyewitnesses who have been surely wrong.
• More than seven many years ago, Yale regulation professor Edwin Orchard (1932) documented 65
convictions of humans whose innocence turned into later demonstrated.
• Most resulted from wrong identifications.
• To verify the accuracy of eyewitness memories, we need to research their typical fees of "hits" and "misses.
• " One manner to gather such facts is to stage crimes similar to the ones in normal life after which solicit
eyewitness reports.
• This has now been achieved oftentimes, once in a while with disconcerting outcomes.
• For example, on the California State University-Hay ward, 141 students witnessed an "assault" on a
professor.
• Seven weeks later, while Robert Buckshot (1974) requested them to discover the assailant from a set of six
pictures, 60% selected an innocent individual.
• No surprise eyewitnesses to real crimes on occasion disagree about what they saw.
• Later studies have showed that eyewitnesses regularly are greater assured than correct.
• For example, Brian Born-stein and Douglas Zickafoose (1999) located that scholars averaged 74% assured
of their later recollections of a classroom traveler, but were handiest 55% correct.
