This Is Psychology

Have you ever sat in a courtroom or watched a trial on television and seen a witness point out the perpetrator with confidence? Psychological researchers have discovered that those identifications aren't so reliable.

This page requires Flash Player version 10.0.2 or higher.

• This video can also be viewed in a Windows Media Player.

• Download and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes.

Dr. Norman Anderson: Hi, I'm Dr. Norman Anderson, CEO of the American Psychological Association. Welcome to "This is Psychology."

Chances are, you've seen a TV show where a witness picks a criminal out of a lineup with relative ease. Or maybe you've seen a movie where a prosecuting attorney asks a witness in a courtroom to point out the killer, which the witness does with relative confidence.

You might be surprised to learn that psychological research has demonstrated that witness identifications are wrong 33 percent of the time. Further psychological research has shown that juries tend to over-believe eyewitness testimony.

There are a number of reasons why eyewitness testimony is so unreliable. Our memories don't function with the efficiency of video recorders, and empirical research has shown that memory erodes over time, which further complicates eyewitness testimony. Also, eyewitnesses may experience stress by being exposed to a crime, and may only see a perpetrator a short period of time, which also has a negative impact on the accuracy of their recollection. In addition, eyewitnesses are less accurate at identifying perpetrators of a race different from their own. In fact, one study of 5,000 witnesses found that different-race identifications were 56 percent more likely to be wrong than same-race identifications.

In short, there is a significant body of psychological research that calls into question the heavy reliance of law enforcement and the courts on eyewitness testimony.

Based on this research, the American Psychological Association has filed two "friend of the court" briefs in criminal cases that turned on eyewitness testimony. One of those cases was argued in the U.S. Supreme Court this year. The other is pending in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

APA's Office of General Counsel works with psychological experts and outside attorneys in preparing these briefs in cases involving issues on which psychology has relevant knowledge or information to share with the court.

You can read more about this process, as well as the actual briefs, on our website at apa.org.

Thanks for watching "This is Psychology."