Citation

McQuiston-Surrett D, Douglass AB, Burkhardt SG. Leg. Crim. Psychol. 2008; 13(2): 279-298.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2008, British Psychological Society, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1348/135532507X214192

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Purpose. Previous research on the reliability of eyewitnesses' facial composites suggests that some scepticism is warranted when evaluating their accuracy. The current research examines the degree to which mock jurors evaluate facial composite images as a source of incriminating or exonerating evidence against a defendant, particularly when they are inconsistent with other evidence presented.Method. Mock jurors read a fictitious criminal trial transcript of a person charged with armed robbery. Experiment 1 manipulated the facial composite evidence such that participants viewed a facial composite which was either a good or a poor match to the defendant. Experiment 2 also manipulated the quality of the facial composite evidence, as well as the other case evidence against the defendant. After reading the transcript, participants made several testimony-relevant judgments about the case.Results. Mock jurors reacted more favourably towards the defendant when the facial composite resembled him than when it did not, but reacted similarly when the composite did not resemble the defendant vs. no composite presented. In addition, assessments of the strength of the composite evidence varied depending on the other case evidence presented.Conclusion. Mock jurors selectively incorporate evidence into their judgments about the credibility of the eyewitness and the culpability of the defendant. They responded to strong vs. weak facial composite evidence as one would expect: A good match composite was viewed as more favourable to the prosecution than a poor match composite. Weak facial composite evidence was largely ignored, however, participants' assessment of the strength of this evidence was adjusted to be consistent with the other evidence presented.

Language: en