Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 84, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 940-951

  Phillips, Mark R ^a   McAuliff, Bradley D ^b   Kovera, Margaret Bull ^b   Cutler, Brian L ^b  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033275647     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.940     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Experimentation in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 99-142). New York: McGraw-Hill.
2. Buckhout, R. F. (1974). Eyewitness identification. Scientific American, 231, 21-31.
3. Buckhout, R. F., Figueroa, D., & Hoff, E. (1975). Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and bias in identification from photographs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 71-74.
4. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
5. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
6. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
7. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups: Partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287-293.
8. Fanselow, M. S. (1975). How to bias a witness continued: Experimental evidence for the non-verbal bias factor in eyewitness identification testing. Social Action and the Law, 2, 3-4.
9. Fanselow, M. S., & Buckhout, R. F. (1976). Nonverbal cueing as a source of biasing information in eyewitness identification testing (Center for Responsive Psychology Monograph No. CR-26). New York: Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
10. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682 (1972).
11. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
12. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
13. 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.
14. Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who puts memory on trial. New York: St. Martin's Press.
15. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
16. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776-783.
17. Rosenberg, M. J. (1969). The conditions and consequences of evaluation apprehension. In R. Rosenthal & R. L. Rosnow (Eds.), Artifact in behavioral research (pp. 279-349). New York: Academic Press.
18. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research (enlarged ed.). New York: Irvington.
19. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20. Stinson, V., Devenport, J. L., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (1996). How effective is the presence of counsel safeguard? Attorney perceptions of suggestiveness, fairness, and correctability of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 64-75.
21. United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300 (1973).
22. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
23. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
24. Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106-117.
25. Wells, G. L., & Seelau, E. P. (1995). Eyewitness identification: Psychological research and legal policy on lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, I, 765-791.
26. Wells, G. L., Seelau, E. P., Rydell, S. M., & Luus, C. A. E. (1994). Recommendations for conducting lineups. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 223-244). New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Wells, G. L., Small, M. A., Penrod, S. D., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 603-647.
28. Wolgalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Burger, M. A. (1993). How police officers conduct lineups: A national survey. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 640-644.