There is nothing quite as convincing to a jury in a court of law than infallible, concrete evidence, however, this type of evidence is not always readily available at a crime scene. It is often necessary to look to other sources, such as an eyewitness, to help settle a trial (Smarlarz & Wells, 2014). This can be problematic due to a number of reasons, the first being that eyewitness testimonies have been increasingly proven, such as through DNA evidence, that the defendant is often misidentified (Innocence Project, 2014). There has been abundant research conducted into false identifications and studies have found, due to numerous reasons including age, bias, gender, cognitive ability and current state, that error rates tend to be quite high …show more content…
In a comprehensive meta-analysis, eyewitness confidence had been found to be a significant factor leading to correct identifications of defendants with an overall moderate, positive correlation being discovered (Sporer, Penrod, Read, Cutler, 1995). While causal inferences cannot be made due to the nature of the research, the confidence-accuracy relationship was also found in an experimental study which consistently found the relationship to exist in both recall and recognition conditions (Robinson & Johnson, 1996). Confidence level retrieved at the time of the identification also tends to be much more accurate compared to when collected at other times (Brewer, 2006). This is most likely explained by the eyewitness report being exempt from interference from other sources. Although, there is still some disagreement among professionals for the relationship as not all research has been consistent with the moderate, positive correlation. For example, the confidence-accuracy correlation was found to shown almost no relationship at all (r=.08) in an earlier review of 31 studies (Wells & Murray, 1984) and, similarly, in another meta-analysis of 35 studies, a significant correlation was found but was only weak in strength (r=.34; Bothwell, Deffenbacher, & Brigham, …show more content…
There has been research to suggest greater eyewitness confidence is associated with greater belief in testimonies from an evaluator’s perspective, and consequently, more likely to result in a guilty verdict (Cutler, Penrod & Dexter, 1989; Jones, Williams & Brewer, 2007; Lindsay, Wells, & O'Connor, 1989). Cutler et al. found in their study that confidence (as measured by 80% and 100%) was the only factor which caused a significant impact to a mock-juror’s perception compared to nine other factors including race, exposure duration and lineup fairness. Therefore, the implication is, if an eyewitness becomes over-confident, it does not necessarily mean that accuracy has also increased. This can be disastrous to a legal system as it heightens the potential for innocent men and women to be wrongly placed into correctional facilities. Except, the results of Cutler et al.’s study may be limited by the use of a 100% confidence rating. This rating increased the chance that ceiling effects had influenced results, rather than the independent variable (Elliott, 1990). However, the results were still consistent for the 80% condition but further analysis, preferably with a low and a moderate confidence rating, is required and should be conducted to confirm Cutler et al.’s