ArticlePsychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law2026
Are legal professionals more knowledgeable about eyewitness testimony factors than the general public? A survey of judges, prosecutors, and laypeople.
Article in Psychiatry, psychology, and law : an interdisciplinary journal of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigates legal professionals' knowledge of eyewitness testimony factors, including system and estimator factors, compared to laypeople. Previous research has questioned the adequacy of methods assessing legal actors' understanding. To address this, 313 legal professionals and 400 laypeople completed a 21-item questionnaire embedded in case-specific scenarios using vignette methodology. Legal professionals achieved an accuracy rate of 66%, compared to 60.3% for laypeople. They more accurately identified estimator factors than system factors, with judges and prosecutors performing better than laypeople in both categories. These results reveal significant variations in knowledge of eyewitness testimony and underscore the need for targeted training programs. Enhancing legal professionals' understanding of eyewitness factors could contribute to fairer and more accurate judicial outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.