PSYCHOLOGY AND TESTIMONY 465 



SHOULD PSYCHOLOGY SUPERVISE TESTIMONY? 



BY FABIAX FRANKLIN" 



PROFESSOR MIINSTERBERG, of Harvard University, who, by 

 his combination of scientific eminence, active interest in public 

 questions, and rare literary skill, occupies a unique position among 

 those who discuss large educational and social problems, recently made 

 a plea, 1 which attracted wide attention, for the introduction of the 

 tests of experimental psychology as a means of judging of the value 

 of evidence given in courts of justice. To show that a deplorably 

 large part of the evidence given in courts and elsewhere is untrust- 

 worthy for one reason or another would have been a work of super- 

 erogation; nothing is better established in the minds of all who have 

 to deal with the subject. But, while everybody is familiar both with 

 the phenomena of lying and loose statement, and with the fantastic 

 tricks played by our treacherous memories, it is probable that most 

 persons are unaware of the trouble that lurks in malobservation ; and it 

 is solely with the errors which arise from this source that Professor 

 Miinsterberg deals in the argument to which we have referred. He 

 presents an appalling array of divergences in the outcome of ordinary 

 observation of the same things by one hundred members of his class at 

 Harvard; and he draws from his results the double conclusion that 

 human observation is incomparably more fallible than is generally sup- 

 posed, and that courts of justice can, and therefore ought to, test the 

 value of the testimony of witnesses by subjecting them to the examina- 

 tion of the expert psychologist. If Professor Miinsterberg is right in 

 these conclusions, they are certainly deserving of the earnest attention 

 both of psychologists and of lawyers; but, while his argument drew 

 forth wide-spread comment, it does not seem to have been anywhere 

 discussed with any thoroughness. And it is the purpose of this paper 

 to show that neither the sweeping pessimism as to human reliability 

 which would result from accepting the record given by Professor 

 Miinsterberg at its face value, nor the practical plea that he urges for 

 the classifying of witnesses by the methods of experimental psychology, 

 is justified upon careful examination of his argument. 



To pass in review each one of the tests detailed by Professor 

 Miinsterberg, and attempt to measure the degree in which the whole 

 array falls short of establishing the contentions which it is designed to 

 support, would require the quotation of almost the whole of the article, 



1 McC 'lure' 's Magazine, July, 1907. 



vol. lxxii. — 30. 



