Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 217-237

  Tredoux, Colin G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN   (South Africa)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; IDENTITY; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MODEL; OFFENDER; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; WITNESS;

EID: 0031954942     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025746220886     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Agresti, A. (1990). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
2. Agresti, A., & Agresti, B. (1978). Statistical analysis of qualitative variation. In K. F. Schuessler (Ed), Sociological methodology (pp. 204-237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Brigham, J. C., & Brandt, C. C. (1992). Measuring lineup fairness: Mock witness responses versus direct evaluations of lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 475-489.
4. Buckhout, R., Rabinowitz, M., Alfonso, V., Kanellis, D., & Anderson, J. (1988). Empirical assessment of lineups: Getting down to cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 323-331.
5. Devlin, Lord Patrick. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
6. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups - Partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287-293.
7. Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response bias in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 525-537.
8. Hays, W. L. (1994). Statistics. New York: Harcourt Brace.
9. Hoffmann, L., & Zefertt, D. (1988). South African law of evidence. Durban, South Africa: Butterworths.
10. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991a). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
11. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991b). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
12. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J., Craig, W., Lee, K. & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 391-404.
13. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303-313.
14. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
15. Luus, E. C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
16. Malpass, R. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299-309.
17. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.). Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81-102). London: Wiley.
18. Melara, R. D., De Witt-Rickards, T., & O'Brien, T. P. (1989). Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: Two codes are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 706-713.
19. Navon, D. (1990a). How critical is the accuracy of an eyewitness's memory? Another look at the issue of lineup diagnosticity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 506-510.
20. Navon, D. (1990b). Ecological parameters nonlineup evidence: A reply to Wells and Luus, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 517-520.
21. Pelwan v. S. (2) (PH) H237 (T) (1963).
22. R v Kola, (1) PH H100 (1949).
23. Rothman, K. J. (1986). Modern epidemiology. Boston: Little, Brown.
24. Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H., & Davies, G. M. (1982). Identification evidence: A psychological evaluation. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
25. Sobel, N. R., & Prigden, D. (1982). Eyewitness identification. Legal and practical problems. New York: Clark Boardman.
26. Wagenaar, W. A., & Veelkind, N. (1992). Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesner (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives, (pp. 275-285). Berlin: de Gruyter.
27. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
28. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto, Canada: Carswell.
29. Wells, G. L., Leippe, M. R., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285-293.
30. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
31. Wells, G. L., & Luus, E. C. A. (1990a). The diagnosticity of a lineup should not be confused with the diagnostic value of nonlineup evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 511-516.
32. Wells, G. L., Seelau, E. P., Rydell, S. M., & Luus, C. A. E. (1994). Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks. In D. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult Eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 223-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320-329.
34. Williams, G., & Hammelmann, H. A. (1963). Identification parades-Parts I and II. Criminal Law Review, 479-491, 545-555.