Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39939728›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Non-verbal cues in eyewitness testimonies do not predict accuracy or credibility assessments.

Arman Raver, Torun Lindholm, Charlotte Alm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Arman RaverDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. raver.gultekin@psychology.su.se.ORCID 0000-0001-6291-632X
Torun LindholmDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8867-5752
Charlotte AlmDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9116-4777

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-verbal behaviour, such as facial expressions and body language, plays a critical role in assessments of witnesses' credibility that inform legal decisions in cases involving crime. While prior research has primarily focused on associations between non-verbal cues and deception, this study investigates the relation between non-verbal cues and recall memory accuracy in honestly reported mock eyewitness testimonies. Using a sample of 36 video-recorded eyewitness testimonies about a violent crime (n = 680 statements), we examined whether non-verbal cues were associated with statement accuracy (correct vs. incorrect), witness credibility as rated by independent observers, and witnesses' self-reported confidence. Additionally, we explored whether these associations differed for native vs. non-native speaking witnesses. Results revealed no associations between non-verbal cues and statement accuracy or perceived credibility. Furthermore, while non-native speakers were perceived as less credible, these perceptions were not related to non-verbal cues. Our findings contradict common beliefs by showing that non-verbal behaviour is not reliably related to accuracy or perceived credibility in eyewitness testimonies, highlighting the need for caution in their use in high-stakes legal contexts.

Indexed as

CuesMental RecallNonverbal CommunicationAdolescentAdultCrimeDeceptionFacial ExpressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultCredibility assessmentEyewitness testimonyMemory accuracyNative vs. non-native speakersNon-verbal cues

Identifiers

PMID39939728
PMCPMC11821912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.