A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 575-604

  Clark, Steven E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Eyewitness identification; Memory; Police procedures

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; DECISION MAKING; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; MEMORY; OFFENDER; RECOGNITION; REVIEW; WITNESS; ADULT; ARTICLE; FEMALE; MALE; VISION;

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33644839228     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-005-7121-1     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654.
2. Clark, S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: Experimental control and real-world simulation. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 199-216.
3. Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 739-755.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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 the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987a). The reliability of eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.
8. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987b). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629-637.
9. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O'Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behaviour, 1, 113-134.
10. Devenport, J. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). The effect of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 11, 35-40.
11. 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.
12. Egan, J. P. (1958). Recognition memory and the operating characteristic. Technical Note AFCRC-TN-58-51, Hearing and Communication Laboratory, Indiana University.
13. Fleet, M. L., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence-accuracy relationship: The effects of confidence assessment and choosing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 171-187.
14. Foster, R. A., Libkuman, T. M., Schooler, J. W., & Loftus, E. F. (1994). Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 107-121.
15. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford, England: Wiley.
16. Hall, D. F., & Ostrom, T. M. (1975). Accuracy of eyewitness identification after biasing or unbiased instructions. Unpublished manuscript.
17. Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, B. L. (1978). False positive identification. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 18, 255-262.
18. Hosch, H. M., Leippe, M. R., Marcioni, P. M., & Cooper, D. S. (1984). Victimization, self-monitoring, and eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 280-288.
19. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but Innocent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. Jr. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327-334.
21. Iglewicz, B., & Hoaglin, D. C. (1993). How to Detect and Handle Outliers. Milwaukee, WI: American Society for Quality Control Press.
22. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
23. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the "general acceptance" of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
24. Kohnken, G., & Maas, A. (1988). Eyewitness testimony: False alarms on biased instructions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 363-370.
25. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V. Y., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
26. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
27. Malpass, R. S., Devine, P. G., & Bergen, G. T. (1980). Eyewitness identification: Realism vs. the laboratory. Unpublished manuscript.
28. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981a). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
29. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981b). Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 347-358.
30. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1984). Research on suggestion in lineups and photospreads. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives (pp. 64-91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Mosteller, F., & Hoaglin, D. C. (1991). Preliminary examination of data. In D. C. Hoaglin, R. Mosteller, & J. W. Tukey (Eds.), Fundamentals of exploratory analysis of variance (pp. 40-49). New York: Wiley.
32. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the Witness Stand. New York: Doubleday.
33. Murdock, B. B., Jr., & Dufty, P. O. (1972). Strength theory and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 284-290.
34. Navon, D. (1992). Selection of lineup foils by similarity to suspect is likely to misfire. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 575-593.
35. Norman, D. A., & Wickelgren, W. A. (1969). Strength theory of decision rules and latency in short-term memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 192-208.
36. O'Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 385-395.
37. Paley, B., & Geiselman, R. E. (1989). The effects of alternative photospread instructions o suspect identification performance. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 3-13.
38. Ratcliff, R., Sheu, C.-F., & Gronlund, S. D. (1992). Testing global memory models using ROC curves. Psychological Review, 99, 518-535.
39. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park: Sage.
40. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183-192.
41. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
42. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
43. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Starr, S. A., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life, Vol. I. Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
44. Tukey, J. W. (1960). A survey of sampling from contaminated distributions. In I. Olkin, J. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madoo, & H. B. Mann (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp. 448-485). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45. Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
46. Warnick, D. H., & Sanders, G. S. (1980). Why do eyewitnesses make so many mistakes? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 362-366.
47. Wells, G. W. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
48. Wells, G. W., & Lindsay, R. C. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
49. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
50. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology (pp. 277-295). Palo Alto: Annual Reviews.
51. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
52. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320-329.
53. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Burger, M. A. (1993). How police officers construct lineups:Anational survey. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 640-644.
54. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of U.S. police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 69-82.