Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mock jurors heard one of four versions of a murder trial and then deliberated in small groups to a verdict. Half the juries heard a trial in which an eyewitness identified the defendant as the murderer and half heard a trial in which a polygraph expert testified that the defendant responded deceptively when denying the crime. These two factors were completely crossed in a 2 × 2 (eyewitness/no eyewitness x polygraph/no polygraph) design. Jurors exposed to the eyewitness testimony believed more strongly in the defendant's guilt and voted guilty more frequently than did those not exposed to eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony also enhanced the degree to which jurors believed that other pieces of evidence indicated that the defendant was guilty. Polygraph evidence exerted no significant effects either on jurors' beliefs or on their verdicts.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Iacono

W. G.

Patrick

C. J.

, Assessing Deception: Polygraph Techniques, in Clinical Assessment of Malingering And Deception, Rogers

(ed.), Guilford, New York, pp. 205–233, 1988.

Kircher

J. C.

Horowitz

S. W.

Raskin

D. C.

, Meta-Analysis of Mock Crime Studies of the Control Question Polygraph Technique, Law and Human Behavior, 12, pp. 79–90, 1988.

Lykken

D. T.

, A Tremor in the Blood, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981.

Patrick

C. J.

Iacono

W. G.

, Psychopathy, Threat, and Polygraph Test Accuracy, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 347–355, 1989.

Iacono

W. G.

Patrick

C. J.

, What Psychologists Should Know about Lie Detection, in Handbook of Forensic Psychology, Weiner

I. B.

Hess

(eds.), Wiley, New York, pp. 460–489, 1987.

Lykken

D. T.

, The Probity of the Polygraph, in The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, Kassin

S. M.

Wrightsman

L. S.

(eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 95–123, 1985.

Koffler

J. M.

, The Lie Detector—A Critical Appraisal of the Technique as a Potential Undermining Factor in the Judicial Process, New York Law Forum, 3, pp. 123–158, 1957.

Carlson

S. C.

Pasano

M. S.

Jannuzzo

J. A.

, The Effect of Lie-Detector Evidence on Jury Deliberations: An Empirical Study, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 5, pp. 148–154, 1977.

Markwart

Lynch

B. E.

, The Effect of Polygraph Evidence on Mock Jury Decision-Making, Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, pp. 324–332, 1979.

10.

Cavoukian

Heselgrave

R. J.

, The Admissibility of Polygraph Evidence in Court: Some Empirical Findings, Law and Human Behavior, 4, pp. 117–131, 1980.

11.

Wells

G. L.

, Eyewitness Identification: A System Handbook, Carswell Legal Publications, Toronto, 1988.

12.

Saunders

D. M.

Vidmar

Hewitt

E. C.

, Eyewitness Testimony and the Discrediting Effect, in Evaluating Witness Evidence, Lloyd-Bostock

Clifford

B. R.

(eds.), Wiley, New York, pp. 57–78, 1983.

13.

Weinberg

H. I.

Baron

R. S.

, The Discredible Eyewitness, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, pp. 60–67, 1982.

14.

Black

H. C.

Nolan

J. R.

Connolly

M. J.

, Black's Law Dictionary, West, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.

15.

Greene

Wilson

Loftus

E. F.

, Impact of Hypnotic Testimony on the Jury, Law and Human Behavior, 13, pp. 61–78, 1989.

16.

Spanos

N. P.

Gwynn

M. I.

Terrade

, Effects on Mock Jurors of Experts Favorable and Unfavorable Toward Hypnotically Elicited Eyewitness Testimony, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 922–926, 1989.

17.

MacCoun

R. J.

Kerr

N. L.

, Asymmetric Influence in Mock Jury Deliberation: Jurors' Bias for Leniency, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, pp. 21–31, 1988.

18.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

, Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa, 1981.

The Effects of Polygraph Evidence and Eyewitness Testimony on the Beliefs and Decisions of Mock Jurors

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References