Effects of Postidentification Feedback on Eyewitness Identification and Nonidentification Confidence

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 334-346

  Semmler, Carolyn ^a   Brewer, Neil ^a   Wells, Gary L ^b,c  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Iowa State University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; VIDEORECORDING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; CRIME; CUES; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VIDEOTAPE RECORDING;

EID: 1842810131     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.334     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Bern, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press.
2. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlations of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
3. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112-120.
4. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 353-364.
5. Brewer, N. D., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). Improving the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Evidence from correlation and calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 44-56.
6. Brigham, J. C., & WolfSkiel, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19-30.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.
10. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Jury decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-56.
11. Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 951-962.
12. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
13. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299-315.
14. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1304-1316.
15. Kahana, M., & Loftus, G. (1999). Response time versus accuracy in human memory. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of cognition (pp. 323-384). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306-334). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17. Lindsay, D. S., Nilsen, E., & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses' versus investigators' confidence in the accuracy of witnesses' identification decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 685-697.
18. Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215-218.
19. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714-723.
20. Malpass, R. L., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
21. Mäntylä, T. (1997). Recollections of faces: Remembering differences and knowing similarities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1203-1216.
22. Murdock, B. B. (1985). An analysis of the strength-latency relationship. Memory and Cognition, 13, 511-521.
23. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
24. Olsson, N. (2000). A comparison of correlation, calibration and diagnosticity as measures of the confidence-accuracy relationship in witness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 504-511.
25. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
26. Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kynan, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice (Briefing Note 2/02). London: Home Office.
27. Potter, R., & Brewer, N. (1999). Perceptions of witness behaviour-accuracy relationships held by police, lawyers and jurors. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 6, 97-103.
28. Quamme, J. R., Frederick, C., Kroll, N. E. A., Yonelinas, A. P., & Dobbins, I. G. (2002). Recognition memory for source and occurrence: The importance of recollection. Memory and Cognition, 30, 893-907.
29. Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law and Psychology Review, 7, 1-15.
30. Shaw, J. S., III., McLure, K. A., & Wilkens, C. E. (2001). Recognition instructions and recognition practice can alter the confidence-response time relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 93-103.
31. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542-550.
32. Sporer, S. L. (1994). Decision times and eyewitness identification accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. In D. F. Ross, D. J. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 300-327). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, J. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
34. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
35. Strack, F., & Bless, H. (1994). Memory for nonoccurrences: Metacognitive and presuppositional strategies. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 203-217.
36. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
37. Tulving, E. (1981). Similarity relations in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 479-496.
38. Turner v. State, No. A03A0250, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1586, at *1 (E.D. Pa. December 13, 2002).
39. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification. American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
40. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). "Good you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
41. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitness recollections: Can the postidentification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
42. 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.
43. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
44. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
45. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2002). The confidence of eyewitnesses in their identifications from lineups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 151-154.
46. Wells, G. L., Small, M., 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, 22, 603-647.
47. Werth, L., Strack, F., & Förster, J. (2001). Social influence and suggestibility in recognition tasks. In V. DePascal, V. A. Gheorghiu, P. W. Sheehan, & I. Kirsch (Eds.), Suggestion and suggestibility: Theory and research (Hypnosis International Monographs No. 4, pp. 153-166). Mönchengladbach, Germany: M. E. G. Stiftung.
48. Yonelinas, A. P., Kroll, N. E. A., Dobbins, I. G., & Soltani, M. (1999). Recognition memory for faces: When familiarity supports associative recognition judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 654-661.