NCJ Number
185222
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 24 Issue: 5 Dated: October 2000 Pages: 581-594
Date Published
October 2000
Length
14 pages
Annotation
This study examined perceptions of testimony related to eyewitness identification and tested the certainty-trumps hypothesis that the unique role of certainty will result in a particular interaction pattern when combined with the four other criteria outlined by the United States Supreme Court in the 1972 decision in Neil v. Biggers.
Abstract
The court outlined the five criteria on which assessments of eyewitness identifications should rest: (1) certainty, (2) view, (3) attention, (4) description, and (5) time. The current study postulated that certainty has a qualitatively different from role from the four other Biggers criteria in assessments of eyewitness identification testimony. Specially, the research hypothesized that participants would ignore reports on other criteria when certainty was high, but not when certainty was low. The 386 participants were students at a large midwestern university. They read a fictitious trial transcript that manipulated three of the five Biggers criteria (certainty, view, and attention or certainty, description, and time). Each participant completed a questionnaire. Results did not support the certainty-trumps hypothesis. Instead, the Biggers criteria combined only as main effects, not interactions, thereby supporting a summative hypothesis. A surprising finding was that collateral effects indicated that manipulations of one criterion (e.g., certainty) affected perceptions of other criteria (e.g., attention and view) and vice versa. Findings indicated that people are willing to consider a variety of variables, even when the eyewitness is certain. Tables, appended table, and 31 references (Author abstract modified)