ISS 305:001 Fall
Study Guide for Exam 1
Below is a list of terms/concepts that you should be familiar with for the Exam on Tuesday,
October 2nd. Please note that the list is not exhaustive.You should be familiar with your lecture
notes and the assigned readings. Some tips: Study hard – go over the notes carefully (most of the
questions will be drawn from lecture material) and be familiar with all readings. Study smart –
know key concepts. Get a good night’s sleep before the exam.
Intro to ISS 305
● 98.6 illustration (anyone know what this is?)
● Critical thinking
○ Ability to construct, identify, and evaluate an argument
■ Not based on emotions
● Candide,Skeptic, skeptic / Eyewitness testimony and juries
○ Candide: falls for everything
○ skeptic: questions validity (implements critical thinking)
○ Skeptic: falls for nothing
A number of studies have shown that jurors tend to accept eyewitness accounts rather
uncritically.
Study 1 (Brigham and Bothwell):
Method: Described 3 studies with staged crimes. Participants (jurors) were asked to estimate the
% of accurate eyewitness identifications in each study.
Study 2 (Wells, Lindsay, & Ferguson):
The method here was also a staged crime: A confederate finds and steals a calculator in the
presence of eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses had to describe the event and identify the
confederate from a 6-photo spread while being videotaped. The videotaped testimony was then
showed to a group of jurors and jurors were asked if they believe the witness & how sure they
were.
, The accuracy of the eyewitnesses was fairly good. 58% of eyewitnesses identified the
confederate correctly from the 6-photo spread. When the witness was accurate, jurors tended to
believe them 80% of the time. However when the witness was inaccurate, jurors tended to
believe them 79.5% of the time.
Implications of both studies:
Jurors may trust eyewitness testimony too much. The solutions to this problem include:
● Improve procedures for getting eyewitness testimony.
● Don’t use weak eyewitnesses.
● Allow stronger cross-examination of eyewitnesses.
● Give jurors special education on fallibility of eyewitness testimony through
demonstrations, judicial instructions, & expert testimony.
Study 3 (Wells, Lindsay, & Tousignant):
The goal of this study was to see if having an expert testify to jurors about the unreliability of
eyewitnesses would reduce the over acceptance of evidence of eyewitness testimony & increase
attention to other evidence. The method was like Study 2. It was a staged crime with 2 conditions
of eyewitnessing. In the poor condition, the witness was far from crime, low light, brief
exposure, culprit’s hat covered face. The moderate condition was the opposite of the poor
condition. The eyewitnesses were videotaped while being asked to judge a lineup of suspects and
say what they saw. These videotapes were shown to mock jurors in two versions of a trial: 1
version with no expert testimony on eyewitnesses & 2nd version with expert testimony on
eyewitnesses from Prof Wells. Then jurors decided whether they believed or didn’t believe
whether the eyewitnesses identified the right suspect.
Results:
Without expert testimony, jurors were Candides. With expert testimony, jurors became Skeptics.
● Objectivity
○ Waiting to see what the evidence shows us rather than going with a hunch
■ Relies on the empirical method
● Curiosity
Study Guide for Exam 1
Below is a list of terms/concepts that you should be familiar with for the Exam on Tuesday,
October 2nd. Please note that the list is not exhaustive.You should be familiar with your lecture
notes and the assigned readings. Some tips: Study hard – go over the notes carefully (most of the
questions will be drawn from lecture material) and be familiar with all readings. Study smart –
know key concepts. Get a good night’s sleep before the exam.
Intro to ISS 305
● 98.6 illustration (anyone know what this is?)
● Critical thinking
○ Ability to construct, identify, and evaluate an argument
■ Not based on emotions
● Candide,Skeptic, skeptic / Eyewitness testimony and juries
○ Candide: falls for everything
○ skeptic: questions validity (implements critical thinking)
○ Skeptic: falls for nothing
A number of studies have shown that jurors tend to accept eyewitness accounts rather
uncritically.
Study 1 (Brigham and Bothwell):
Method: Described 3 studies with staged crimes. Participants (jurors) were asked to estimate the
% of accurate eyewitness identifications in each study.
Study 2 (Wells, Lindsay, & Ferguson):
The method here was also a staged crime: A confederate finds and steals a calculator in the
presence of eyewitnesses. These eyewitnesses had to describe the event and identify the
confederate from a 6-photo spread while being videotaped. The videotaped testimony was then
showed to a group of jurors and jurors were asked if they believe the witness & how sure they
were.
, The accuracy of the eyewitnesses was fairly good. 58% of eyewitnesses identified the
confederate correctly from the 6-photo spread. When the witness was accurate, jurors tended to
believe them 80% of the time. However when the witness was inaccurate, jurors tended to
believe them 79.5% of the time.
Implications of both studies:
Jurors may trust eyewitness testimony too much. The solutions to this problem include:
● Improve procedures for getting eyewitness testimony.
● Don’t use weak eyewitnesses.
● Allow stronger cross-examination of eyewitnesses.
● Give jurors special education on fallibility of eyewitness testimony through
demonstrations, judicial instructions, & expert testimony.
Study 3 (Wells, Lindsay, & Tousignant):
The goal of this study was to see if having an expert testify to jurors about the unreliability of
eyewitnesses would reduce the over acceptance of evidence of eyewitness testimony & increase
attention to other evidence. The method was like Study 2. It was a staged crime with 2 conditions
of eyewitnessing. In the poor condition, the witness was far from crime, low light, brief
exposure, culprit’s hat covered face. The moderate condition was the opposite of the poor
condition. The eyewitnesses were videotaped while being asked to judge a lineup of suspects and
say what they saw. These videotapes were shown to mock jurors in two versions of a trial: 1
version with no expert testimony on eyewitnesses & 2nd version with expert testimony on
eyewitnesses from Prof Wells. Then jurors decided whether they believed or didn’t believe
whether the eyewitnesses identified the right suspect.
Results:
Without expert testimony, jurors were Candides. With expert testimony, jurors became Skeptics.
● Objectivity
○ Waiting to see what the evidence shows us rather than going with a hunch
■ Relies on the empirical method
● Curiosity
