Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony

A review is made of recent experimental research regarding how well human observers can judge the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. It is concluded that people: (a) may be overwilling to believe in the accuracy of eyewitnesses' memory; (b) rely too heavily on the confidence of eyewitnesses in judging the validity of testimony; (c) fail to adequately account for witnessing conditions across crimes; and (d) cannot discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses within crimes. New data are reported from an experiment designed to test the effects that expert psychological advice has on subject-jurors' performance with regard to these four deficiencies. The results showed that expert advice served to eliminate the overbelief bias and greatly reduced subject-jurors' reliance on the confidence of the witnesses. Expert, advice did not improve the extent to which subject-jurors took account of the witnessing conditions across crimes nor their ability to discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses within crimes.