Moving forward: Response to "Studying eyewitness investigations in the field"

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 16-21

  Ross, Stephen J ^a   Malpass, Roy S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness field studies; Eyewitness policy; Lineup reformation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFOUNDING VARIABLE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FIELD STUDY; GUILT; HUMAN; IDENTITY; POLICY; UNITED STATES; WITNESS;

CRIME VICTIMS; CRIMINOLOGY; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; HUMANS; IDENTIFICATION (PSYCHOLOGY); ILLINOIS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 37849031195     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-007-9104-x     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Berhman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25(5), 475-491.
2. Brigham, J. C., Meissner, C. A., & Wasserman, A. W. (1999). Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S73-S92.
3. Diamond, S. S. (2007). Psychological contributors to evaluating witness testimony. In F. Borgida & S. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. Blackwell.
4. Doyle, J. M., Penrod, S., Kovera, M. B., & Dysart, J. (2006). The street, the lab, the courtroom, the meeting room. Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 13-16, 31, 46.
5. Ebbeson, E. B. (2006). Comments on IL simultaneous v. sequential lineup field test. Retrieved May 29, 2006 from http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/∼eebbesen/ SimSeqIL.htm.
6. Ebbeson, E. B., & Finklea, K. M. (2006). In response to the Illinois pilot program on simultaneous v. sequential lineups. Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 9-44.
7. Ellsworth, P. C. (1999). Sticks and stones. Law and Human Behavior, 23(6), 719-722.
8. Feige, D. (2006). Witnessing guilt, ignoring innocence? The New York Times, Retrieved June 6, 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/opinion/ 06feige.html.
9. Geller, W. A. (1997). Suppose we were really serious about police departments becoming "learning organizations"? National Institute of Justice Journal, 234, 2-8.
10. Haw, R., Mitchell, T., & Wells, G. (2003). The influence of line-up administrator knowledge and witness perceptions on eyewitness identification decisions. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Psychology and the Law, Edinburgh, Scotland.
11. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.
12. Innocence Project (2006). Response to the Illinois pilot program report. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/Issues/ eyewitnessid1.
13. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N. K., & Caligiuri, H. L. (2006). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup project. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4, 381-413.
14. Lieberman, S. (2006). Eyewitness identifications: The view from Chicago. New York Law Journal, 4-6.
15. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 303-313.
16. Lindsay, R. C. L., Smith, S. M., & Pryke, S. (1999). Measures of lineup fairness: Do they postdict identification accuracy? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 93-107.
17. Malpass, R. S. (1981). Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 299-309.
18. Malpass, R. S., MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., Tredoux, C. G., & McQuiston, D. E. (2003). A study space analysis for policy development: Application to simultaneous vs. sequential lineups. In R. S. Malpass (Ed.), Simultaneous or sequential lineups? New data, new perspectives, new looks at old questions, and a study space based policy analysis. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Psychology and the Law, Edinburgh, Scotland.
19. Malpass, R. S. (2006a). Notes on the Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures. Public Interest Law Reporter, 11(2), 5-47.
20. Malpass, R. S. (2006b). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(4), 394-418.
21. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 81-102). London: Wiley & Sons.
22. McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2002). Validity of the mockwitness paradigm: Testing the assumptions. Law and Human Behavior, 26(4), 439-453.
23. McQuiston, D. E., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12(2), 137-169.
24. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006). Report to the legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on double-blind, sequential lineup procedures. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Police.
25. O'Toole, T. P. (2006). What's the matter with Illinois? How an opportunity was squandered to conduct an important study on eyewitness identification procedures. The Champion, 18-23.
26. O'Toole, T. P., & Shay, G. (2006). Manson v. Brathwaite revisited: Towards a new rule of decision for due process challenges to eyewitness identification procedures. Valparaiso Law Review, 41(1), 109-148.
27. Paulson, A., & Llana, S. M. (2006). In police lineups, is the method the suspect? Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/ 2006/0424/p01s04-usju.html.
28. 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.
29. Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kynan, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice. London: Briefing note to the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate.
30. Ross, S. J., & Malpass, R. S. (2007). An evaluation of the field studies on eyewitness identification procedures: What do we know and what can we learn? Paper presented at the "Off the witness stand: Using psychology in the practice of justice" conference, New York, NY.
31. Russano, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2006). Why don't you take another look at number three? Investigator knowledge and its effects on eyewitness confidence and identification issues. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4, 355-379.
32. Schacter, D., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2007). Policy Forum: Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 31(5) (this issue).
33. Sherman, L. W. (2006). "To develop and test:" The inventive difference between evaluation and experimentation. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/Issues/eyewitnessid1.
34. State of Wisconsin Office of the Attorney General (2006). Response to Chicago report on eyewitness identification procedures. Wis. Act 60, 17 (to be codified as Wis. Stat 175.50(2), 1-4.
35. Steblay, N. (2006). Observations on the Illinois data. Retrieved from http://www.augsburg.edu/psychology/steblay.html.
36. Sweeney, A. (2006). Traditional police lineup works better: Study. Chicago-Sun Times, 16.
37. The Justice Project (2007). Eyewitness identification: A policy review. Retrieved from http://www.thejusticeproject.org.
38. Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
39. Tredoux, C. (2002). A direct measure of facial similarity and its relation to human similarity perceptions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(3), 180-193.
40. Wells, G. L. (2006a). Gary L. Well's comments on the Mecklenburg report. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/gwells/.
41. Wells, G. L. (2006b). An important note on field studies of eyewitness identifications from lineups: Filler identifications are "conditional proxy measures". Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/ gwells/.
42. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10(1), 69-82.
43. Zernicke, K. (2006). Questions raised over new trend in police lineups. The New York Times, 1.