Investigating investigators: Examining witnesses' influence on investigators

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 707-732

  Dahl, Leora C ^a   Lindsay, D Stephen ^a   Brimacombe, C A Elizabeth ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Crime investigation; Evidence; Eyewitness identification; Investigator decision making

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; DATA BASE; DECISION MAKING; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; GUILT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; POLICE; WITNESS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTITUDE; BRITISH COLUMBIA; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; DERMATOGLYPHICS; FORENSIC SCIENCES; GUILT; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MENTAL RECALL; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; POLICE; PROBABILITY; PROFESSIONAL ROLE; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); RECORDS;

EID: 33751505256     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9012-5     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anderson, N. H. (1965). Adding versus averaging as a stimulus combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394-400.
2. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
3. Bregman, N. J., & McAllister, H. A. (1987). Perceived innocence or guilt: Role of eyewitness identification and fingerprints. The Southern Psychologist, 3, 49-52.
4. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
5. Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (2002). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. In T. Gilovich & D. Griffin (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 716-729). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
7. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299-314.
8. Jones, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557-581.
9. Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship between lineup fairness and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303-314.
13. 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.
14. Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). "I'd know a false confession if I saw one": A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211-227.
15. McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 168-170.
16. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
17. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photo array administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
18. Shaw, J. S., III, Garven, S., &Wood, J. M. (1997). Co-witness information can have immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 503-523.
19. Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mock-juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 614-630.
20. Toomela, A. (2005). Decision making with incomplete information: Systemic and nonsystemic ways of thinking in psychology and medicine. In R. Bibace & J. D. Laird (Eds.), Science and medicine in dialogue: Thinking through particulars and universals (pp. 231-241). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
21. Wells, G. L., & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682-687.
22. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
23. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
24. 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.