Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 18, 2025

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm
Published on: December 24, 2015
Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation
Devon E LaBat1, Deborah Goldfarb1, Jacqueline R Evans1
1Department of Psychology, Florida International University.
Objective:
We explored whether an educational forensic science informational (FSI) video either alone or with specialized jury instructions would assist mock jurors in evaluating forensic expert testimony.
Hypotheses:
We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high.
Method:
Jury-eligible adults (N = 641; Mage = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts.
Results:
The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: d = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: d = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: d = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert's testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: d = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: d = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: d = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (ds = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect.
Conclusion:
The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Related Concept Videos
Eyewitness Memory
One such error is memory distortion, which occurs because human memory does not function...
False Memories
One primary source of false memories is misattribution, where individuals incorrectly associate external information...
Effects of EDTA on End-Point Detection Methods
In the visual method, metal-ion indicators (metallochromic dyes), which have distinct colors in their free and complex forms, are added to the mixture to signal the titration's end point. They form stable complexes with metal ions, but these complexes are weaker than the corresponding metal–EDTA complexes. As a...
Confirmation Biases
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
Reliability and Validity

