Abstract
It is possible that eyewitnesses may not notice crimes when focused on something else due to “inattentional blindness” (IB). However, it is unclear how witnesses who experience IB will be perceived by jurors, and what factors may influence these perceptions. In study 1, mock jurors read a transcript of an assault crime, in which one witness noticed the assault and another witness did not (i.e. experienced IB). It was found that the witness who experienced IB was perceived as less credible than the witness who saw the crime. In study 2, the same trial was manipulated, such that the witnesses were either civilians or police officers, the witness who experienced IB was familiar with the defendant or not, and an expert witness provided testimony on IB or not. It was again found that the witness who experienced IB was perceived as less credible compared to the witness who saw the crime. Participants’ beliefs about IB differed depending on the presence of an expert, witness role, and witness familiarity with the defendant, but these beliefs did not translate to how the IB witness was perceived. The findings highlight the negative legal implications that may arise when witnesses (particularly civilians) experience IB for a crime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
While we acknowledge that the number of participants excluded based on failing manipulation questions is large, the decision to exclude participants for failing manipulation checks was made prior to data collection. Additionally, we believed it important to exclude participants for failing manipulation checks based on the method through which the data was collected. Participants completed the study voluntarily as part of an in-class experiment for an introductory psychology course. Given this, we believed having stringent manipulation checks was paramount for ensuring participants took participation in the study seriously.
References
Ainsworth PB (1981) Incident perception by British police officers. Law Hum Behav 5:231–236
Alonzo JD, Lane SM (2010) Saying versus judging: assessing knowledge of eyewitness memory. Appl Cogn Psychol 24:1245–1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1626
Beanland V, Pammer K (2010) Gorilla watching: effects of exposure and expectations on inattentional blindness. In: Christensen W, Schier E, Sutton J (eds) ASC09: Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Australasian Society for Cognitive Science. Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science, Sydney, pp 12–20. https://doi.org/10.5096/ASCS20093
Benton TR, Ross DF, Bradshaw E, Thomas WN, Bradshaw GS (2006) Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Appl Cogn Psychol 20:115–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1171
Berman GL, Cutler BL (1996) Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. J Appl Psychol 81:170–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.170
Chabris CF, Weinberger A, Fontaine M, Simons DJ (2011) You do not talk about Fight Club if you do not notice Fight Club: inattentional blindness for a simulated real-world assault. i-Perception 2:150–153. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0436
Christianson SÅ, Karlsson I, Persson LGW (1998) Police personnel as eyewitnesses to a violent crime. Leg Criminol Psychol 3:59–72
Connolly DA, Price HL, Lavoie JAA, Gordon HM (2008) Perceptions and predictors of children’s credibility of a unique event and an instance of a repeated event. Law Hum Behav 32:92–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9083-3
Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR (1989) The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law Hum Behav 13:311–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067032
Desmarais SL, Read JD (2011) After 30 years, what do we know about what jurors know? A meta-analytic review of lay knowledge regarding eyewitness factors. Law Hum Behav 35:200–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9232-6
Dianiska RE, Cash D, Meissner CA (2019) The reciprocal nature of lying and memory: memory confabulation and diagnostic cues to deception. In: Docan-Morgan T (ed) The Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 347–365
Hyman IE (2016) Unaware observers: the impact of inattentional blindness on walkers, drivers, and eyewitnesses. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5:264–269
Hyman IE, Wulff AN, Thomas AK (2018) Crime blindness: how selective attention and inattentional blindness can disrupt eyewitness awareness and memory. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci 5:202–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732218786749
Jaeger CB, Levin DT, Porter E (2017) Justice is (change) blind: applying research on visual metacognition in legal settings. Psychol Public Policy Law 23:259–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000107
Kebbell MR, Milne R (1998) Police officers’ perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. J Soc Psychol 138:323–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224549809600384
Kim YS, Barak G, Shelton DE (2009) Examining the “CSI-effect” in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: multivariate and path analyses. J Crim Just 37:452–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.005
Lehr D (2009) The fence: a police cover-up along Boston’s racial divide. HarperCollins, US
Levin DT (2012) Concepts about agency constrain beliefs about visual experience. Conscious Cogn 21:875–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.02.011
Levin DT, Angelone BL (2008) The visual metacognition questionnaire: a measure of intuitions about vision. Am J Psychol 121:451–472. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445476
Lindholm T, Christianson SÅ, Karlsson I (1997) Police officers and civilians as witnesses: intergroup biases and memory performance. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:431–444
Loftus EF (1980) Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. J Appl Psychol 65:9–15
Loftus EF, Loftus GR, Messo J (1987) Some facts about “weapon focus”. Law Hum Behav 11:55–62
Mack A, Rock I (1998) Inattentional blindness. MIT Press, Cambridge
Matsuo K, Itoh Y (2016) Effects of emotional testimony and gruesome photographs on mock jurors’ decisions and negative emotions. Psychiatry Psychol Law 23:85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1032954
Most SB, Scholl BJ, Clifford ER, Simons DJ (2005) What you see is what you set: sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. Psychol Rev 112:217–242
Nadal KL, Davidoff KC (2015) Perceptions of police scale (POPS): measuring attitudes towards law enforcement and beliefs about police bias. Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Science 3:1–9. https://doi.org/10.15640/jpbs.v3n2a1
New South Wales Department of Justice (2016). Jury trial and verdict. Retrieved from http://www.courts.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/cats/jury_service/trial_verdict.aspx. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
Ortega J, Montañes P, Barnhart A, Kuhn G (2018) Exploiting failures in metacognition through magic: visual awareness as a source of visual metacognition bias. Conscious Cogn 65:152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.008
Otgaar H, Howe ML, Memon A, Wang J (2014) The development of differential mnemonic effects of false denials and forced confabulations. Behav Sci Law 32:718–731. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2148
Paterson HM, Anderson DWM, Kemp RI (2013) Cautioning jurors regarding co-witness discussion: the impact of judicial warnings. Psychol Crime Law 19:287–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.631539
Pezdek K, Stolzenberg S (2014) Are individuals’ familiarity judgments diagnostic of prior contact? Psychol Crime Law 20:302–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.772181
Pica E, Sheahan C, Mesasan A, Pozzulo J (2018) The influence of prior familiarity, identification delay, appearance change, and descriptor type and errors on mock jurors’ judgments. J Police Crim Psychol 33:289–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9251-z
Read JD, Desmarais SL (2009) Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: a Canadian evaluation. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:301–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1459
Reisberg D, Simons DJ, Fournier LR (2016) Introduction to the forum on when and whether psychological research is ready to use in the justice system. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5:233–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.009
Rivardo MG, Brown KA, Rodgers AD, Maurer SV, Camaione TC, Minjock RM, Gowen GM (2011) Integrating inattentional blindness and eyewitness memory. N Am J Psychol 13:519–538
Rosenbaum DP, Schuck AM, Costello SK, Hawkins DF, Ring MK (2005) Attitudes toward the police: the effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Q 8:343–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271085
Schweitzer K, Nuñez N (2018) What evidence matters to jurors? The prevalence and importance of different homicide trial evidence to mock jurors. Psychiatry Psychol Law 25:437–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1437666
Sheahan CL, Pozzulo JD, Reed JE, Pica E (2018) The role of familiarity with the defendant, type of descriptor discrepancy, and eyewitness age on mock jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness testimony. J Police Crim Psychol 33:35–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9232-2
Shermer LO, Rose KC, Hoffman A (2011) Perceptions and credibility: understanding the nuances of eyewitness testimony. J Contemp Crim Justice 27:183–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986211405886
Simons D (2017) Failures of awareness: the case of inattentional blindness. In: Biswas-Diener R, Diener E (eds) Noba textbook series: psychology. DEF publishers, Champaign nobaproject.com
Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28:1059–1074
Simons DJ, Chabris CF (2011) What people believe about how memory works: a representative survey of the US population. PLoS One 6(8):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022757
Simons DJ, Chabris CF (2012) Common (mis)beliefs about memory: a replication and comparison of telephone and mechanical Turk survey methods. PLoS One 7(12):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051876
Simons DJ, Schlosser MD (2017) Inattentional blindness for a gun during a simulated police vehicle stop. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0074-3
Smart SM, Berry MA, Rodriguez DN (2014) Skilled observation and change blindness: a comparison of law enforcement and student samples. Appl Cogn Psychol 28:590–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3021
Stanny CJ, Johnson TC (2000) Effects of stress induced by a simulated shooting on recall by police and citizen witnesses. Am J Psychol 113:359–386
Thompson LE, Sheahan C, Pica E, Pozzulo J (2019) The influence of familiarity recency and eyewitness age on mock jurors’ judgement. J Police Crim Psychol 34:362–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9311-z
Vallano JP, Pettalia J, Pica E, Pozzulo J (2019a) An examination of mock jurors’ judgments in familiar identification cases. J Police Crim Psychol 34:121–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-018-9266-0
Vallano JP, Slapinski KA, Steele LJ, Briggs AP, Pozzulo JD (2019b) Familiar eyewitness identifications: the current state of affairs. Psychol Public Policy Law 25:128–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000204
Vredeveldt A, van Koppen PJ (2016) The thin blue line-up: comparing eyewitness performance by police and civilians. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5:252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.06.013
Vredeveldt A, Knol JW, van Koppen PJ (2017) Observing offenders: incident reports by surveillance detectives, uniformed police, and civilians. Leg Criminol Psychol 22:150–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/Lcrp.12087
Wiseman R, Watt C (2015) And now for something completely different: inattentional blindness during a Monty Python’s Flying Circus sketch. i-Perception 6:38–40. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0706sas
Wortley S, Hagan J, Macmillan R (1997) Just deserts? The racial polarization of perceptions of criminal injustice. Law Soc Rev 31:637–676
Yarmey AD (2001) Expert testimony: does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts? Can Psychol 42:92–100
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Caleb Owens for assistance with data collection for study 2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cullen, H.J., Paterson, H.M. & van Golde, C. Mock Juror Perceptions of Witness Inattentional Blindness. J Police Crim Psych 38, 263–280 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09399-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09399-7