Eyewitness Testimony

Annual Review of Psychology

Volumn 54, Issue , 2003, Pages 277-295

  Wells, Gary L ^a   Olson, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Lineup; Testimony; Witness

Indexed keywords

CRIMINAL LAW; HUMAN; RECALL; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SUGGESTION; VISION;

CRIMINAL LAW; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH; SUGGESTION; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0242425679     PISSN: 00664308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Behrman BW, Davey SL. 2001. Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: an archival analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 25:475-91
2. Bothwell RK, Deffenbacher KA, Brigham JC. 1987. Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: optimality hypothesis revisited. J. Appl. Psychol. 72:691-95
3. Bradfield AL, Wells GL, Olson EA. 2002. The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. J. Appl. Psychol. 87: 112-20
4. Brewer N, Keast A, Rishworth A. 2002. Improving the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification: evidence from correlation and calibration. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 8:44-56
5. Brigham JC, Barkowitz P. 1978. Do "They all look alike?" The effect of race, sex, experience, and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 8:306-18
6. Brigham JC, Bothwell RK. 1983. The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law Hum. Behav. 7:19-30
7. Brown E, Deffenbacher K, Sturgill W. 1977. Memory for faces and the circumstances of the encounter. J. Appl. Psychol. 62:311-18
8. Christianson SA. 1992. Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: a critical review. Psychol. Bull. 112:284-309
9. Clark SE. 2002. A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. In press
10. Clark SE, Tunnicliff JL. 2001. Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification: experimental control and real-world simulation. Law Hum. Behav. 25:199-216
11. Clifford BR, Hollin CR. 1981. Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. J. Appl. Psychol. 66:364-70
12. Cutler BL, Penrod SD, Martens TK. 1987. The reliability of eyewitness identification: the role of system and estimator variables. Law Hum. Behav. 11:233-58
13. Deffenbacher K. 1983. The influence of arousal on reliability of testimony. In Evaluating Witness Evidence: Recent Psychological Research and New Perspectives, ed. SMA Lloyd-Bostock, BR Clifford, pp. 235-51. Chichester, Engl.: Wiley
14. Deffenbacher K, Loftus EF. 1982. Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law Hum. Behav. 6:15-30
15. Dunning D, Perretta S. 2002. Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: a 10- to-12 second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. J. Appl. Psychol. In press
16. Dunning D, Stern LB. 1994. Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications via inquiries about decision processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67:818-35
17. Easterbrook JA. 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychol. Rev. 66:183-201
18. Ebbesen E, Howe S. 2002. Simultaneous versus sequential lineups: what do we really know? Law Hum. Behav. In press
19. Ellis HD, Davies GM, Shepherd JW. 1977. Experimental studies of face identification. J. Crim. Def. 3:219-34
20. Fleishman JJ, Buckley ML, Klosinsky MJ, Smith N, Tuck B. 1976. Judged attractiveness in recognition memory of women's faces. Percept. Mot. Skills 43:709-10
21. Hockley WE, Hemsworth DH, Consoli A. 1999. Shades of the mirror effect: recognition of faces with and without sunglasses. Mem. Cogn. 27(1):128-38
22. Hosch HM, Leippe MR, Marchioni PM, Cooper DS. 1984. Victimization, self-monitoring, and eyewitness identification. J. Appl. Psychol. 69:280-88
23. Hosch HM, Platz SJ. 1984. Self-monitoring and eyewitness accuracy. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 10:283-89
24. Howells TH. 1938. A study of ability to recognize faces. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 33:124-27
25. Juslin P, Olson N, Winman A. 1996. Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: comments on what can and cannot be inferred from a low confidence-accuracy correlation. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 5:1304-16
26. Langois JH, Roggman LA. 1990. Attractive faces are only average. Psychol. Sci. 1:115-21
27. Leippe MR, Wells GL, Ostrom TM. 1978. Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification. J. Appl. Psychol. 63:345-51
28. Light LL, Kayra-Stuart F, Hollander S. 1979. Recognition memory for typical and unusual faces. J. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Learn. 5:212-28
29. Lindsay RCL, Martin R, Webber L. 1994. Default values in eyewitness descriptions: a problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law Hum. Behav. 18: 527-41
30. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL. 1980. What price justice? Exploring the relationship between lineup fairness and identification accuracy. Law Hum. Behav. 4:303-14
31. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL. 1985. Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. J. Appl. Psychol. 70:556-64
32. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL, O'Connor F. 1989. Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: a replication. Law Hum. Behav. 13:333-40
33. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL, Rumpel C. 1981. Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and between situations? J. Appl. Psychol. 66:79-89
34. Loftus EF, Loftus GR, Messo J. 1987. Some facts about "weapon focus." Law Hum. Behav. 11:55-62
35. Luus CAE, Wells GL. 1991. Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law Hum. Behav. 15:43-57
36. Malpass RS. 1981. Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law Hum. Behav. 5:299-309
37. Malpass RS, Devine PG. 1981. Eyewitness identification: lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. J. Appl. Psychol. 66: 482-89
38. McConkey KM, Roche SM. 1989. Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Aust. Psychol. 24: 377-84
39. Meissner C, Brigham JC. 2001. Twenty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:3-35
40. Navon D. 1992. Selection of foils by similarity to suspect is likely to misfire. Law Hum. Behav. 16:575-93
41. Noon E, Hollin CR. 1987. Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: a British survey. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 1:143-53
42. Phillips MR, McAuliff BD, Kovera MB, Cutler BL. 1999. Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:940-51
43. Powers PA, Andriks JL, Loftus EF. 1979. Eyewitness accounts of males and females. J. Appl. Psychol. 64:339-47
44. Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL. 1998. Identification accuracy of children versus adults: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 22:549-70
45. Pozzulo JD, Lindsay RCL. 1999. Elimination lineups: an improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses. J. Appl. Psychol. 84:167-76
46. Read JD, Vokey JR, Hammersley R. 1990. Changing photos of faces: effects of exposure duration and photo similarity on recognition and the accuracy-confidence relationship. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cogn. 16:870-82
47. Risinger MD, Saks MJ, Thompson WC, Rosenthal R. 2002. The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: hidden problems of expectation and suggestion. Calif. Law Rev. 90:1-56
48. Robinson MD, Johnson JT, Herndon F. 1997. Reaction time and assessments of cognitive effort as predictors of eyewitness' memory accuracy and confidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:416-25
49. Rosenthal R. 1976. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York: Irvington
50. Ross DP, Read JD, Toglia MP, eds. 1994. Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
51. Scheck B, Neufeld P, Dwyer J. 2000. Actual Innocence. New York: Random House
52. Seelau SM, Wells GL. 1995. Applied eyewitness research: the other mission. Law Hum. Behav. 19:317-22
53. Shapiro PN, Penrod SD. 1986. Meta-analysis of racial identification studies. Psychol. Bull. 100:139-56
54. Shaw JI, Skolnick P. 1999. Weapon focus and gender differences in eyewitness accuracy: arousal versus salience. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29:2328-41
55. Shaw JS III. 1996. Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. 2:126-46
56. Shaw JS III, McClure KA. 1996. Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Law Hum. Behav. 20:629-54
57. Smith SM, Lindsay RCL, Pryke S. 2000. Post-dictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identification be diagnosed? J. Appl. Psychol. 85:542-50
58. Sporer SL. 1992. Post-dieting eyewitness accuracy: confidence, decision times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 22:157-80
59. Sporer SL. 1993. Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:22-33
60. Sporer SL. 1994. Decision times and eyewitness identification accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. See Ross et al. 1994, pp. 300-27
61. Sporer SL, Penrod SD, Read JD, Cutler BL. 1995. Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: a meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychol. Bull. 118:315-27
62. Steblay NM. 1992. A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law Hum. Behav. 16:413-24
63. Steblay NM. 1997. Social influence in eyewitness recall: a meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law Hum. Behav. 21:283-98
64. Steblay NM, Dysart J, Fulero S, Lindsay RCL. 2001. Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. Law Hum. Behav. 25:459-74
65. Tech. Work. Group Eyewitness Evidence. 1999. Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Off. Justice Programs
66. Tollestrup PA, Turtle JW, Yuille JC. 1994. Actual witnesses to robbery and fraud: an archival analysis. See Ross et al. 1994, pp. 144-62
67. Wells GL. 1978. Applied eyewitness testimony research: system variables and estimator variables. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36:1546-57
68. Wells GL. 1984a. The psychology of lineup identifications. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 14:89-103
69. Wells GL. 1984b. How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony? In Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives, ed. GL Wells, EF Loftus, pp. 256-72. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
70. Wells GL. 1993. What do we know about eyewitness identification? Am. Psychol. 48:553-71
71. Wells GL. 2001. Police lineups: data, theory, and policy. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:791-801
72. Wells GL, Bradfield AL. 1998. "Good, you identified the suspect:" Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:360-76
73. Wells GL, Bradfield AL. 1999. Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the post-identification feedback effect be moderated? Psychol. Sci. 10:138-44
74. Wells GL, Ferguson TJ, Lindsay RCL. 1981. The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implication for triers of fact. J. Appl. Psychol. 66:688-96
75. Wells GL, Hryciw B. 1984. Memory for faces: encoding and retrieval operations. Mem. Cogn. 12:338-44
76. Wells GL, Leippe MR. 1981. How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. J. Appl. Psychol. 66:682-87
77. Wells GL, Leippe MR, Ostrom TM. 1979. Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law Hum. Behav. 3:285-93
78. Wells GL, Lindsay RCL. 1980. On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychol. Bull. 88:776-84
79. Wells GL, Lindsay RCL, Ferguson TJ. 1979. Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. J. Appl. Psychol. 64:440-48
80. Wells GL, Luus CAE. 1990. Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 16:106-17
81. Wells GL, Malpass RS, Lindsay RCL, Fisher RP, Turtle JW, Fulero S. 2000. From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. Am. Psychol. 55:581-98
82. Wells GL, Olson EA. 2002. Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. J. Exp. Psychol.: Appl. In press
83. Wells GL, Rydell SM, Seelau EP. 1993. On the selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. J. Appl. Psychol. 78:835-44
84. Wells GL, Seelau EP, Rydell SM, Luus CAE. 1994. Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks. See Ross et al. 1994, pp. 223-44
85. Wells GL, Small M, Penrod SD, Malpass RS, Fulero SM, Brimacombe CAE. 1998. Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law Hum. Behav. 22:603-7
86. Wells GL, Turtle JW. 1986. Eyewitness identification: the importance of lineup models. Psychol. Bull. 99:320-29
87. Wogalter MS, Marwitz DB, Leonard DC. 1992. Suggestiveness in photospread lineups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 6:443-53
88. Wright DB, McDaid AT. 1996. Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 10:75-84