Studies in Testimony

Abstract

It seems to be a regrettable fact that little systematic psychological experimentation is being carried on in the field of normal adult testimony. Much valuable material is being produced by psychiatrists, sociologists, and criminologists from time to time; but the subjects of such studies are, for the most part, either psychopathic or criminal variants from the mental or social norms. On the other hand, much constructive work is being done by statistical and educational psychologists toward the development of intelligence and fitness tests; but the direct application of such psycho-statistical procedures to everyday legal problems of testimony seems a long way off. Such work as has been reported in the legal field proper lies almost wholly in the line of the Aussage, or fidelity of tests.2 An incident is performed, or an object presented, before experimental subjects whose immediate, written report is scored as to accuracy and completeness by the experimenter. question has been asked, says Wigmore,3 the alleged percentages of testimonial error, as found in the laboratory experiments, do really, in trials, produce misleading results in the verdicts. The way to answer this is to include a jury (or judge of fact) in the experiment, and observe whether the findings of fact follow the testimonial errors or whether they succeed in avoiding them and in reaching the actual facts. The problem, thus stated, is, from a psychological point of view, such a broad one that preliminary studies are indicated for the purpose of roughly determining, first, where lie the possible psycho-legal causes of testimonial error; and, secondly, as suggested by Wigmore, what possible psychological relations may exist between the findings of judge and jury and the original testimony upon which such findings were based. Such were the purposes, then, of the preliminary studies herein reported.