Psychological Myths About Evidence in the Legal System: How Should Researchers Respond?

We consider six myths regarding mistaken beliefs about psychological processes (perception, memory, judgment) shaping legal evidence, and we offer research to debunk each. These myths include the idea that identification evidence provided by police officers is more reliable than similar evidence provided by civilians, that officers can reliably detect deception, that officers' memories are not compromised by stress, and the claim that providing one sleep cycle after a use-of-force incident improves officers' memories. We also consider cognitive mechanisms that contribute to the maintenance of these myths. In debunking the myths, we take on the more general issue of why myths related to cognitive processing in the real world should be addressed and suggest multiple vehicles for doing so. We consider both the benefits and the obstacles for each path, and end by suggesting a novel resource for debunking myths in the legal system.

Automated summary

This study discusses six common misconceptions about psychological processes in shaping legal evidence and debunks these myths through research. It also examines the cognitive mechanisms that contribute to the maintenance of these myths and suggests various approaches to address and overcome them.