Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses

Psychological Science

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 172-178

  Wright, Daniel B ^a   Skagerberg, Elin M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITION; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEMORY; REVIEW; TIME; VISION;

COGNITION; CRIME; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MEMORY; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33947660422     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01868.x     Document Type: Review

References (27)

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. Behrman, B.W., & Richards, R.E. (2005). Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: A reality monitoring analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 279-301.
3. 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.
4. Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11-30.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
6. Dixon, S., & Memon, A. (2005). The effect of post-identification feedback on the recall of crime and perpetrator details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 935-951.
7. Douglass, A.B., & Steblay, N.M. (2006). Memory distortion in eye-witnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.
8. Harrell, F.E., & Davis, C.E. (1982). A new distribution-free quantile estimator. Biometrika, 69, 635-640.
9. Home Office. (2005). Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s.60(1)(a), s.60A(1) and s.66(1)). Codes of Practice A-G. 2005 edition. London: The Stationary Office.
10. Kebbell, M.R. (2000). The law concerning the conduct of lineups in England and Wales: How well does it satisfy the recommendations of the American Psychology-Law Society? Law and Human Behavior, 24, 309-315.
11. Killeen, P.R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345-353.
12. Penrod, S. (2003, Spring). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police performing? Criminal Justice Magazine, 54, 36-47.
13. Sebeok, T.A., & Rosenthal, R. (Eds.). (1981). The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses, whales, apes, and people. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
14. Slater, A. (1994). Identification parades: A scientific evaluation. London: Police Research Group, Home Office.
15. Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
16. Valentine, T., & Heaton, P. (1999). An evaluation of the fairness of police line-ups and video identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S59-S72.
17. Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993.
18. Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G.L, Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: Theunruly 10-12 second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139-147.
19. 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, 360-376.
20. Wells, G.L, Malpass, R.S., Lindsay, R.C.L, Fisher, R.P., Turtle, J.W., & Fulero, S. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
21. Wells, G.L., & Olson, E.A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
22. Wells, G.L., & Olson, E.A. (2003). Eyewitness identification. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
23. 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.
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.
25. Wilcox, R.R. (1997). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. Wright, D.B. (2006). Causal and associative hypotheses in psychology: Examples from eyewitness testimony research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 190-213.
27. Wright, D.B., & McDaid, A.T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.