The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1

The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1

Loftus (1974) had subjects read summaries of criminal trials that contained the testimony of either credible or discredited prosecution eyewitnesses, and found no effect of discrediting an eyewitness. Instead, almost as many subjects voted guilty with a discredited eyewitness as with a credible eyew...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied social psychology 1992-01, Vol.22 (1), p.70-82
Hauptverfasser: Kennedy, Thomas D., Haygood, Robert C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Testimony
Trials
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 82
container_issue 1
container_start_page 70
container_title Journal of applied social psychology
container_volume 22
creator Kennedy, Thomas D.
Haygood, Robert C.
description Loftus (1974) had subjects read summaries of criminal trials that contained the testimony of either credible or discredited prosecution eyewitnesses, and found no effect of discrediting an eyewitness. Instead, almost as many subjects voted guilty with a discredited eyewitness as with a credible eyewitness; this led Loftus to the conclusion that jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony. Loftus's conclusion was subsequently challenged by others who reported a strong discrediting effect. A series of three experiments using college students was conducted to explore the characteristics of trial summaries that might account for the discrepancy in results, such as inclusion of judicial instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or an eyewitness's reaffirmation of his testimony following discrediting. In all cases, a strong discrediting effect was found. Apparently the discrediting effect appears regardless of wide variation in content of trial summaries. The present data do not support the overbelief claim.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01522.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1873345650</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4317876641</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p830-1548262b993c452a33281a1bc132a5359db9afd8bf0af72df303933ee2506de63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kF9LwzAUxYMoOKffoehz6725S5e8CGNu_mGgYN9D2iaasnWz6dj67W3Z8LxcDudwD_wYu0dIsNdjlaAQKkaJaYJK8aTNAQXnyfGCjf6jSzYC4Bgr4Oqa3YRQ9VYJkCMG2Y-Nnn0oGlv61tff0cI5W7SRr6NFZw--rW0IUWZD6zfbusNbduXMOti78x2zbLnI5q_x6uPlbT5bxTtJEKOYSJ7yXCkqJoIbIi7RYF4gcSNIqDJXxpUyd2DclJeOgBSRtVxAWtqUxuzh9HbXbH_3_bqutvum7hc1yinRRKQC-tbTqXXwa9vpXeM3puk0gh7o6EoPCPSAQA909JmOPur32dfnFOgPDzhZtQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1873345650</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Kennedy, Thomas D. ; Haygood, Robert C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Kennedy, Thomas D. ; Haygood, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><description>Loftus (1974) had subjects read summaries of criminal trials that contained the testimony of either credible or discredited prosecution eyewitnesses, and found no effect of discrediting an eyewitness. Instead, almost as many subjects voted guilty with a discredited eyewitness as with a credible eyewitness; this led Loftus to the conclusion that jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony. Loftus's conclusion was subsequently challenged by others who reported a strong discrediting effect. A series of three experiments using college students was conducted to explore the characteristics of trial summaries that might account for the discrepancy in results, such as inclusion of judicial instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or an eyewitness's reaffirmation of his testimony following discrediting. In all cases, a strong discrediting effect was found. Apparently the discrediting effect appears regardless of wide variation in content of trial summaries. The present data do not support the overbelief claim.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9029</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-1816</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01522.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JASPBX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Testimony ; Trials</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied social psychology, 1992-01, Vol.22 (1), p.70-82</ispartof><rights>Copyright Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. Jan 1992</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1992.tb01522.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1992.tb01522.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,33774,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kennedy, Thomas D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><title>The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1</title><title>Journal of applied social psychology</title><description>Loftus (1974) had subjects read summaries of criminal trials that contained the testimony of either credible or discredited prosecution eyewitnesses, and found no effect of discrediting an eyewitness. Instead, almost as many subjects voted guilty with a discredited eyewitness as with a credible eyewitness; this led Loftus to the conclusion that jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony. Loftus's conclusion was subsequently challenged by others who reported a strong discrediting effect. A series of three experiments using college students was conducted to explore the characteristics of trial summaries that might account for the discrepancy in results, such as inclusion of judicial instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or an eyewitness's reaffirmation of his testimony following discrediting. In all cases, a strong discrediting effect was found. Apparently the discrediting effect appears regardless of wide variation in content of trial summaries. The present data do not support the overbelief claim.</description><subject>Testimony</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>0021-9029</issn><issn>1559-1816</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kF9LwzAUxYMoOKffoehz6725S5e8CGNu_mGgYN9D2iaasnWz6dj67W3Z8LxcDudwD_wYu0dIsNdjlaAQKkaJaYJK8aTNAQXnyfGCjf6jSzYC4Bgr4Oqa3YRQ9VYJkCMG2Y-Nnn0oGlv61tff0cI5W7SRr6NFZw--rW0IUWZD6zfbusNbduXMOti78x2zbLnI5q_x6uPlbT5bxTtJEKOYSJ7yXCkqJoIbIi7RYF4gcSNIqDJXxpUyd2DclJeOgBSRtVxAWtqUxuzh9HbXbH_3_bqutvum7hc1yinRRKQC-tbTqXXwa9vpXeM3puk0gh7o6EoPCPSAQA909JmOPur32dfnFOgPDzhZtQ</recordid><startdate>199201</startdate><enddate>199201</enddate><creator>Kennedy, Thomas D.</creator><creator>Haygood, Robert C.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199201</creationdate><title>The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1</title><author>Kennedy, Thomas D. ; Haygood, Robert C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p830-1548262b993c452a33281a1bc132a5359db9afd8bf0af72df303933ee2506de63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Testimony</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kennedy, Thomas D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Haygood, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kennedy, Thomas D.</au><au>Haygood, Robert C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied social psychology</jtitle><date>1992-01</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>70</spage><epage>82</epage><pages>70-82</pages><issn>0021-9029</issn><eissn>1559-1816</eissn><coden>JASPBX</coden><abstract>Loftus (1974) had subjects read summaries of criminal trials that contained the testimony of either credible or discredited prosecution eyewitnesses, and found no effect of discrediting an eyewitness. Instead, almost as many subjects voted guilty with a discredited eyewitness as with a credible eyewitness; this led Loftus to the conclusion that jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony. Loftus's conclusion was subsequently challenged by others who reported a strong discrediting effect. A series of three experiments using college students was conducted to explore the characteristics of trial summaries that might account for the discrepancy in results, such as inclusion of judicial instructions concerning proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or an eyewitness's reaffirmation of his testimony following discrediting. In all cases, a strong discrediting effect was found. Apparently the discrediting effect appears regardless of wide variation in content of trial summaries. The present data do not support the overbelief claim.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01522.x</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9029
ispartof Journal of applied social psychology, 1992-01, Vol.22 (1), p.70-82
issn 0021-9029
1559-1816
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1873345650
source Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Testimony
Trials
title The Discrediting Effect in Eyewitness Testimony1
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T09%3A44%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Discrediting%20Effect%20in%20Eyewitness%20Testimony1&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Kennedy,%20Thomas%20D.&rft.date=1992-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=70&rft.epage=82&rft.pages=70-82&rft.issn=0021-9029&rft.eissn=1559-1816&rft.coden=JASPBX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01522.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E4317876641%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1873345650&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true