Field experiments on eyewitness identification: Towards a better understanding of pitfalls and prospects

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 6-10

  Wells, Gary L ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness; Field experiments; Lineups

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FIELD EXPERIMENT; GUILT; HUMAN; IDENTITY; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; WITNESS;

CRIME VICTIMS; CRIMINOLOGY; HUMANS; IDENTIFICATION (PSYCHOLOGY); RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 37849044561     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-007-9098-4     Document Type: Article

References (26)

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. 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.
5. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. M. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991-1007.
6. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.
7. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299-315.
8. 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.
9. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.
10. Mecklenburg, S. (2006a). Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-blind Identification Procedures.
11. Mecklenburg, S. (2006b). Addendum to the Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-blind Identification Procedures.
12. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. R., 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.
13. 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. Champion, 2006, 18-23.
14. Schacter, D., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2007). Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior (this issue).
15. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2006). Post-identification feedback effects on face recognition confidence: Evidence for metacognitive influences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 895-916.
16. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334-346.
17. Sherman, L. W. (2006). To develop and test: The inventive difference between evaluation and experimentation. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 393-406.
18. Slater, A. (1994). Identification parades: A scientific Evaluation. Police Research Award Scheme. London: Police Research Group, Home Office.
19. Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993.
20. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.
21. 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.
22. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the postidentification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
23. Wells, G. L., Olson, E., & Charman, S. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42-52.
24. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). On the selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844.
25. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
26. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Post-identification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.