Does expert psychological testimony improve juror sensitivity to lineup suggestiveness?

Previous research has examined the validity of behavioral assumptions underlying the presumed effectiveness of safeguards against erroneous conviction resulting from mistaken eyewitness identification. In keeping with this agenda, this study examined juror sensitivity to lineup suggestiveness in the form of foil, instruction, and presentation biases and whether expert psychological testimony further sensitizes jurors to the factors that influence the likelihood of false identifications. One hundred and sixty jury eligible citizens watched versions of a videotaped trial that included information about the identification of the defendant by an eyewitness and that varied the suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure. In addition, half of the mock-jurors heard the testimony of an expert psychologist regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. Mock-jurors rendered individual verdicts, rated the defendant's culpability and the suggestiveness and fairness of the identification procedure. Results indicated that jurors are somewhat sensitive to foil bias but are insensitive to instruction and presentation biases. No evidence was found to suggest that expert testimony leads to juror skepticism or juror sensitization. These results question the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identification. ^

Using the Big -Five personality factors in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, California Psychological Inventory, and Inwald Personality Inventory to predict police performance

The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the Big-Five personality taxonomy, as represented by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), California Psychological Inventory (CPI), and Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI) scales, predicted a variety of police officer job performance criteria. Data were collected archivally for 270 sworn police officers from a large Southeastern municipality. Predictive data consisted of scores on the MMPI, CPI, and IPI scales as grouped in terms of the Big-Five factors. The overall score on the Wonderlic was included in order to assess criterion variance accounted for by cognitive ability. Additionally, a psychologist's overall rating of predicted job fit was utilized to assess the variance accounted for by a psychological interview. Criterion data consisted of supervisory ratings of overall job performance, State Examination scores, police academy grades, and termination. Based on the literature, it was hypothesized that officers who are higher on Extroversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and lower on Neuroticism, otherwise known as the Big-Five factors, would outperform their peers across a variety of job performance criteria. Additionally, it was hypothesized that police officers who are higher in cognitive ability and masculinity, and lower in mania would also outperform their counterparts. Results indicated that many of the Big-Five factors, namely, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience, were predictive of several of the job performance criteria. Such findings imply that the Big-Five is a useful predictor of police officer job performance. Study limitations and implications for future research are discussed. ^