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

Journal Article Link 9.1: Turtle, J., & Want, S. (2008). Logic and Research Versus Intuition and Past Practice as Guides to Gathering and Evaluating Eyewitness Evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(10), 1241-1256.

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.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 9.2: Weinberg, H., & Baron, R. (1982). The Discredible Eyewitness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(1), 60-67.

In a recent, widely publicized finding (Loftus, 1974), eyewitness testimony heightened judgments of guilt even when the testimony was discredited In Study I we offered two hypotheses to explain this finding: that it depends on the order of presentation of evidence, and/or that the discreditors had low credibility due to their self-interest. Contrary to prediction, we found that eyewitness testimony did not heighten judgments of guilt when it was discredited. In Study 2, we replicated our results, again reversing Loftus' original findings, even when the eyewitness was allowed to reaffirm his identification after the discreditation.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 9.3: Brewer, P., & Ley, B. (2009). Media Use and Public Perceptions of DNA Evidence. Science Communication, 32(1), 93-117.

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.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?