Aim: to investigate the effect of psychological expert testimony
Participants: 120 p's from Washington Uni
Method: P's split into 6 groups - evidence presented to each through a booklet - Discussed evidence for 30 mins before a group verdict was asked to be given - Observers listened in adjoining room and timed the discussing of eye witness testimony
Design: Independent measures; 2 conditions, expert witness for defenece and no expert
Independent verdict: Whether expert testimony was given or not and the testimony included weapon focus effect
Results: -Jurors who read the expert testimony spent on average 10 minutes discussing eyewitness testimony evidence - No expert testimony Majority voted guilty - With expert testimony majority not guilty and failed to reach verdict
Conclusion: Expert testimony prompted more discussion of eyewitness testimony. Expert testimony appeared to increase doubt of defendants guilt. Loftus clained that if both councels used expert testimony, this could confuse a jury.
Comments
No comments have yet been made