Viewing composite sketches: Lineups and showups compared

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 383-395

  Dekle, Dawn J ^a  

^a SINGAPORE MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; CRIMINOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; RECALL BIAS; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNIVERSITY STUDENT; VISUAL MEMORY; WITNESS; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 33646404649     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1185     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: an archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
2. Benson, P. J., & Perrett, D. I. (1991). Perception and recognition of photographic quality facial caricatures: implications for the recognition of natural images. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 3, 105-135.
3. Brigham, J. C., & Brandt, C. C. (1992). Measuring lineup fairness: mock witness responses versus direct evaluation of lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 475-489.
4. Brigham, J. C., & Cairns, D. L. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1394-1410.
5. Bruce, V., Ness, H., Hancock, P. J. B., Newman, C., & Rarity, J. (2002). Four heads are better than one: combining face composites yields improvements in face likeness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 894-902.
6. Comish, S. E. (1987). Recognition of facial stimuli following an intervening task involving the Identi-kit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 488-491.
7. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
8. Cutler, B. L., Stocklein, C. J., & Penrod. S. D. (1988). An empirical examination of a computerized facial composite production system. Forensic Reports, 1, 207-218.
9. Davies, G. M., Ellis, H., & Shepherd, J. (1978). Face identification: the influence of delay on accuracy of Photofit construction. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 6, 35-42.
10. Davies, G. M., van der Willik, P., & Morrison, L. J. (2000). Facial composite production: a comparison of mechanical and computer-driven systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 119-124.
11. Deffenbacher, K. A., Carr, T. H., & Leu, J. R. (1981). Memory for words, pictures, and faces: retroactive interference, forgetting, and reminiscence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 299-305.
12. Dekle, D. J. (1997). Testing delays resulting in increased identification accuracy in lineups and showups. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 25, 35-49.
13. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mug shot exposure prior to lineup identification: interference, transference, and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1280-1284.
14. Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., McQuiston-Surrett, D., Richardson, J., Baldwin, H., & Hancock, P. (2005a). Contemporary composite techniques: the impact of a forensically-relevant target delay. Legal and Criminal Psychology, 10, 63-81.
15. Frowd, C. D., Carson, D., Ness, H., Richardson, J., Morrison, L., McLanaghan, S., & Hancock, P. (2005b). A forensically valid comparison of facial composite systems. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 11, 33-52.
16. Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 525-537.
17. Gorenstein, G. W., & Ellsworth, C. (1980). Effect of choosing an incorrect photograph on a later identification by an eyewitness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 615-622.
18. Hsieh, F. Y., Bloch, D. A., & Larsen, M. D. (1998). A simple method of sample size calculation for linear and logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 1623-1634.
19. Jenkins, F., & Davies, G. M. (1985). Contamination of facial memory through exposure to misleading composite pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 164-176.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
23. Kovera, M. B., Penrod, S. D., Pappas, C., & Thill, D. L. (1997). Identification of computer-generated facial composites. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 235-246.
24. Laughery, K. R., & Fowler, R. F. (1980). Sketch artist and Identikit procedures for recalling faces. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 307-316.
25. Levine, F., & Tapp, J. (1973). The psychology of criminal identification: the gap from Wade to Kirby. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121, 1079-1131.
26. Lewis v. State, 554 N.E.3d 1133 (Ind. 1990).
27. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Applying applied research: selling the sequential lineup. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 219-225.
28. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.
29. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 391-404.
30. 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.
31. Loftus, E. F. (1979). The malleability of memory. American Scientist, 67, 312-320.
32. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
33. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81-102). Chichester, England: Wiley.
34. Mauldin, M. A., & Laughery, K. R. (1981). Composite production effects on subsequent facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 351-357.
35. Mock v. Rose, 472 F.2d 619 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 971. (1973).
36. Moore, P. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1992). Showup identification procedure increases accuracy of eyewitnesses to a violent event. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society Annual Convention, San Diego, California.
37. National Institute of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: a guide for law enforcement, NIJ, 178240 Research Report, NIJ, US Dept & Justice, Washington, D.C.
38. Neil v. Biggers, 409 US 188, 201. (1972).
39. People v. McMurray, 175 A.D.2d 886, 573 N.YS.2d 734, 735 (2d Dept. 1991).
40. People v. Nash, 129 Cal.App.3d 513, 518. (1982).
41. Singletary v. United States, 383 A.2d 1064 (D.C. 1978).
42. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness accuracy: can false identifications be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542-550.
43. Smith, H., & Wesson, D. B. (1990). Identi-kit Company. 17985 Sky Park Circle, Suite C, California, 92714.
44. Sobel, N. R. (1992). Eyewitness Identification: Legal and Practical Problems. Clark Boardman Callaghan: New York, New York.
45. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 523-540.
46. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
47. Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293. (1967).
48. Sutherland, R., & Hayne, H. (2001). The effect of post-event information on adults' eyewitness reports. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 249-263.
49. United States v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98. (1977).
50. United States v. Briggs, 700 F2d 408, 413 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1110. (1983).
51. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218. (1967).
52. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
53. Wells, G. L., Charman, S. D., & Olson, E. A. (2005). Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 147-156.
54. Wells, G. L., Leippe, M. H., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Guidelines for empirically assessing the fairness of a lineup. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 285-293.
55. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Berger, M. A. (1993). How police officers construct lineups: a national survey. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 640-644). The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: Santa Monica, CA.
56. Wogalter, M. S., & Marwitz, D. B. (1991). Face composite construction: In-view and from-memory quality and improvement with practice. Ergonomics, 34, 459-468.
57. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
58. Yu, C. J., & Geiselman, R. E. (1993). Effects of constructing Identi-kit composites on photospread identification performance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20, 280-292.