Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony

Michael McCloskey; Howard E. Egeth

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1065

Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony

Michael McCloskey, Howard E. Egeth

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Responds to comments by G. L. Wells on the present authors' argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1065-1066
Number of pages	2
Journal	American Psychologist
Volume	39
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1065
State	Published - Sep 1984
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

role in evaluating eyewitness testimony, psychologists, reply to comments by G. L. Wells

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Psychology(all)

Access to Document

10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1065

Cite this

@article{e3a3a9085acf4044a6230603975eee50,

title = "Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony",

abstract = "Responds to comments by G. L. Wells on the present authors' argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).",

keywords = "role in evaluating eyewitness testimony, psychologists, reply to comments by G. L. Wells",

author = "Michael McCloskey and Egeth, {Howard E.}",

year = "1984",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1065",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "39",

pages = "1065--1066",

journal = "American Psychologist",

issn = "0003-066X",

publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony

AU - McCloskey, Michael

AU - Egeth, Howard E.

PY - 1984/9

Y1 - 1984/9

N2 - Responds to comments by G. L. Wells on the present authors' argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

AB - Responds to comments by G. L. Wells on the present authors' argument that current empirical findings on perception and memory do not justify a role for psychologists in evaluating eyewitness testimony. The present authors argue that Wells's statements on process and outcome confuse the outcome of an individual trial and trials in the aggregate. The question of whether jurors tend to overbelieve eyewitness testimony is discussed. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

KW - role in evaluating eyewitness testimony, psychologists, reply to comments by G. L. Wells

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58149372780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58149372780&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1065

DO - 10.1037/0003-066X.39.9.1065

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:58149372780

SN - 0003-066X

VL - 39

SP - 1065

EP - 1066

JO - American Psychologist

JF - American Psychologist

IS - 9

ER -

Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this