On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts.

TLDR

Recent advances in eyewitness research have highlighted the need to reassess expert consensus on courtroom practices. This study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts to evaluate current agreement on key phenomena. Sixty‑four psychologists were surveyed about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. Experts agreed (≥80%) that many phenomena—question wording, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug‑shot bias, post‑event information, child witness suggestibility, attitudes, hypnotic suggestibility, intoxication, cross‑race bias, weapon focus, accuracy‑confidence correlation, forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation format, and unconscious transference—are reliable for court, and they set high standards before testifying, suggesting these findings can shape expert testimony to better reflect scientific consensus.

Abstract

In light of recent advances, this study updated a prior survey of eyewitness experts (S. M. Kassin, P. C. Ellsworth, & V. L. Smith, 1989). Sixty-four psychologists were asked about their courtroom experiences and opinions on 30 eyewitness phenomena. By an agreement rate of at least 80%, there was a strong consensus that the following phenomena are sufficiently reliable to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, confidence malleability, mug-shot-induced bias, postevent information, child witness suggestibility, attitudes and expectations, hypnotic suggestibility, alcoholic intoxication, the crossrace bias, weapon focus, the accuracy-confidence correlation, the forgetting curve, exposure time, presentation format, and unconscious transference. Results also indicate that these experts set high standards before agreeing to testify. Despite limitations, these results should help to shape expert testimony so that it more accurately represents opinions in the scientific community.