Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Turtle, J., & Want, S. C. (2008). Logic and research versus intuition and past practice as guides to gathering and evaluating eyewitness evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1241–1256.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/q2fvC23sudzk2I3GTMEk/full

Abstract: Psychologists have conducted extensive research and devoted substantial thought to the memory, cognition, decision-making, logic, and human interaction components of eyewitness evidence. It is fortunate that much of that work has been formally recognized by law enforcement and the legal community and used as the basis for procedure and policy changes with regard to how eyewitness evidence is collected and evaluated. The authors discuss reasons that some segments of law enforcement, the legal community, and the public resist these research findings (e.g., by seeing psychology's role as a way to discredit eyewitness evidence or being committed to established procedures that have no empirical support). The authors also address gaps between these common misconceptions and what the psychology research perspective has to offer, in an effort to gain even more support for research- and logic-based recommendations concerning eyewitness evidence.

Journal Article 2: Brewer, P. R., & Ley, B. L. (2009). Media use and public perceptions of DNA evidence. Science Communication, 32, 93–117.

URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/nJZBsunRYdDkyDw4Za83/full

Abstract: This study uses survey data to examine how various forms of media use are related to public perceptions of DNA evidence, including self-perceived understanding of DNA, perceptions of DNA evidence as reliable, weight attached to DNA evidence (or the absence thereof) in jury decision making, and support for a national DNA databank. The hypotheses build on cultivation theory, priming theory, and research regarding the “CSI effect.” The findings indicate that overall television viewing, crime television viewing, and news media use predict perceptions of DNA evidence. Moreover, a question-order experiment produced evidence that priming thoughts about media can influence such perceptions.