Share This Article:

The Impact of Criminal Code Training on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:40KB) PP. 1027-1029
DOI: 10.4236/psych.2013.412149    3,076 Downloads   4,528 Views  


Eyewitness identification accuracy of offenders (persons who committed a crime) is generally unreliable. In this study, we implemented a training approach to examine the impact of a brief criminal law training session on the identification accuracy of eyewitnesses viewing a simulated violent altercation between two males. Participants provided with prior training on how to appropriately apply specific criminal law definitions relevant to a violent altercation (assault and self-defense provisions) were more accurate in their identifications of the offender when compared to participants provided with irrelevant training (a riot and the unlawful assembly of a riot), and participants provided with no training, when observing the same violent altercation. Potential implications and limitations are discussed.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Storozuk, M. & Dupuis, P. (2013). The Impact of Criminal Code Training on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy. Psychology, 4, 1027-1029. doi: 10.4236/psych.2013.412149.


[1] Athens, L. (1997). Violent criminal acts and actors revisited. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
[2] Athens, L. (2005). Violent encounters: Violent engagements, skirmishes, and tiffs. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 631-678.
[3] Clark, S. E., Marshall, T.E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 63-75.
[4] Criminal Code, R.S.C. C-46 (1985).
[5] Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706.
[6] Guerette, R. T., & Santana, S. A. (2010). Explaining victim self-protective behavior effects on crime incident outcomes: A test of opportunity theory. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 198-226.
[7] Hellman, J. H., Echterhoff, G., Kopietz, R., Niemeier, S., & Memon, A. (2011). Talking about visually perceived events: Communication effects on eyewitness memory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 658-671.
[8] Hermida, J. (2011). Criminal law. The Netherlands: Kluwe Law International.
[9] Leippe, M. R., Eisenstandt, D., & Rauch, S. M (2009). Cueingconfidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup condition. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.
[10] Marsh, D. P., & Greenberg, M. S. (2006). The influence of eyewitness similarity to a crime victim and victim culpability on eyewitness recall. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2, 43-56.
[11] Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analytic analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99-139.
[12] Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eye witness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 9, 101-118.
[13] Webber, N., & Perfect, T. J. (2012). Improving eyewitness identification accuracy by screening out those who say they don’t know. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 28-36.
[14] Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.

comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.