A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 17, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 629-654

  Clark, Steven E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FOIL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEMORY; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; WITNESS;

EID: 3042581594     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.891     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bjork, R. A. (1973). Why mathematical models? American Psychologist, 28, 426-433.
2. Clark, S. E. (1997). A familiarity-based account of confidence-accuracy inversions in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 232-238.
3. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: how the models fit the data. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 37-60.
4. Clark, S. E. (2001). Memory and confidence in eyewitness identification and other complex memory decisions. Third International Conference on Memory, Valencia, Spain.
5. Clark, S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: experimental control and real-world simulation. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 199-216.
6. Dunning, D., & Peretta, 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.
7. Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818-835.
8. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory models. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
9. Hintzman, D. L. (1991). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In W. E. Hockley, & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 39-56). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. 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, & Cognition, 22, 1304-1316.
11. Levi, A. M., & Jungman, N. (1995). The police lineup: basic weaknesses, radical solutions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 347-372.
12. Lewandowsky, S. (1993). The rewards and hazards of computer simulations. Psychological Science, 4, 236-243.
13. Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: a problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 527-541.
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, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
16. Murdock, B. B. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information. Psychological Review, 89, 609-626.
17. Navon, D. (1992). Selection of lineup foils by similarity to suspect is likely to misfire. Law & Human Behavior, 16, 575-593.
18. Pigott, M., & Brigham, J. C. (1985). Relationship between accuracy of prior description and facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 547-555.
19. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Elimination lineups: an improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses. Law & Human Behavior, 84, 167-176.
20. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1992). Models for recall and recognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 205-234.
21. Sergent, J. (1984). An investigation into component and configural processes underlying face perception. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 221-242.
22. Shiffrin, R. M., & Nobel, P. A. (1997). The art of model development and testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 29, 6-14.
23. Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: confidence, decision-times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 74, 157-180.
24. Tanaka, J. W., & Farah, M. J. (1993). Parts and wholes in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 46, 225-245.
25. Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: matching suspects or descriptions? Law & Human Behavior, 24, 231-258.
26. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
27. Wells, G. L. (1985). Verbal descriptions of faces from memory: are they diagnostic of identification accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 619-626.
28. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
29. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
30. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844.
31. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1988). Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
32. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Berger, M. A. (1993). How do police officers construct lineups: a national survey. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37, 640-644.
33. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.