The impact of compensation on jurors' perceptions of eyewitness testimony

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract Background Legal systems rely heavily on eyewitness testimony. However, contextual factors surrounding identification and testimony can affect how witness testimony is perceived. Whether eyewitnesses receive compensation for their testimony may influence perceptions of their reliability, but this notion has not been empirically investigated. To that end, three studies examined how the presence or absence of compensation for witness testimony influenced evaluators' perceptions of witnesses. Method Participants read brief statements (Experiment 1) or a mock‐trial vignettes (Experiments 2 and 3) describing whether witnesses received compensation, did not receive compensation, or lacked any mention of compensation. Experiments 2 and 3 also manipulated the magnitude of the compensation, such that witnesses either received a weak or a strong incentive to testify. Results and Discussion Participants were more sceptical of witnesses who received compensation for their testimony when witness information was presented in isolation (Experiment 1). However, this effect was not observed in the more complex mock‐trial scenarios (Experiments 2 and 3). Across Experiments 2 and 3, compensation effects were non‐significant and accounted for around 1% of the variance in confidence and accuracy, suggesting a negligible impact of compensation on performance. Participants who did not receive information about witness compensation in Experiments 2 and 3 overestimated how much it would influence their judgements compared to how much people who received this information reported relying on it when making their judgements. These findings suggest that witness compensation might not harm perceptions of witness testimony.