Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 859-869

  Douglass, Amy Bradfield ^a   Steblay, Nancy ^b  

^a BATES COLLEGE   (United States)

^b AUGSBURG COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; AUSTRALIA; COURT; DECISION MAKING; EFFECT SIZE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEMORY CONSOLIDATION; OFFENDER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCINFO; RECOGNITION; RELIABILITY; TIME; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES; WITNESS;

EID: 33751054435     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1237     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Australian Law Reform Commission (2005). Discussion Paper 69, Review of the Uniform Evidence Acts. Retrieved January 4, 2006 from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/dp/69/
2. Bradfield, A., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). When does evidence of eyewitness confidence inflation affect judgments in a criminal trial? Law and Human Behavior 28(4), 369-387.
3. Bradfield, A., & Wells, G. L. (2005). Not the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of recollections. Memory and Cognition, 33(l), 120-130.
4. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112-120.
5. Coddington, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2000, March). The malleability of eyewitness metamemory judgments: The effect of question difficulty. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society meeting. New Orleans, LA.
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
8. Davies, G. M. (1996). Mistaken identifications: Where law meets psychology head on. The Howard Journal, 35, 232-241.
9. Davies, G. M., & Valentine, T. (1999). Codes of practice for identification. Expert Evidence: International Journal of Behavioural Sciences in Legal Context, 7(l), 59-65.
10. Douglass, A. B. (see Bradfield), & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (in press). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/acp1253
11. Douglass, A. B. (see Bradfield), Smith, C., & Fraser-Thill, R. (2005). A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness's confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness. Law and Human Behavior 29(5), 543-562.
12. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science, and the battle against misidentification. Palgrave Macmillin: New York.
13. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1, 288-299.
14. Fischhoff, B. (1977). Perceived informativeness of facts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 3, 349-358.
15. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior 10, 215-228.
16. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25(3), 299-315.
17. Hafstad, G. S., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901-912.
18. Kassin, S. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649-654.
19. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N., & Caligiuri, H. (in press). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup pilot project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy & Ethics Journal.
20. Leippe, M. R. (1994). The appraisal of eyewitness testimony. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & H. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 385-418). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
22. 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.
23. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 714-734.
24. Neil v. Biggers. 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
25. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. P., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., Fairless, A. H., Lawson, D. S., Powers, R. A., Goodsell, C. A. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435-453.
26. 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.
27. v. Turnbull. Queen's Bench 224 (1977).
28. Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 283-293.
29. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004), Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 334-346.
31. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(l), 22-33.
32. Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior 21(3), 283-298.
33. 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(5),459.
34. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 523-540.
35. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; NCJ 178240.
36. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36(12), 1546-1557.
37. 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(3), 360-376.
38. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitness' recollections: Can the postidentification-feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
39. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42-52.
40. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 835-844.
41. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., 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.