Eyewitness testimony research: Current knowledge and emergent controversies.

Abstract

Psychological research on eyewitness testimony has flourished over the last decade and there are now a number of findings that appear relevant to police and courts. We review some of the major eyewitness research findings regarding such things as the relationship between accuracy and confidence, the identification of perpetrators from lineups, and the influence of misleading information on eyewitness memory and reports. Next, we discuss a controversy over the application of eyewitness research in the courtroom, namely expert testimony. The debate regarding expert testimony has sharpened researchers' conceptions of generalization problems and the quality of jurors' knowledge about eyewitness accuracy, as well as raising concerns about the proper role of experimental psychologists in the legal system. We propose that the confusion and controversy over expert testimony stems largely from the fact that expert testimony represents an attempt to provide services to the judicial phase, rather than the evidence-production phase, of the fact-finding process.