Regularities in eyewitness identification

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 32, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 187-218

  Clark, Steven E ^a   Howell, Ryan T ^b   Davey, Sherrie L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness identification; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EMOTION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; GUILT; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROBABILITY SAMPLE; THEORETICAL STUDY; WITNESS;

COGNITION; CRIME; HUMANS; MEMORY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 43749118534     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9082-4     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. *Brewer, N., Keast, A., & Rishworth, A. (2002). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: The effects of reflection and disconfirmation on correlation and calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 44-56.
2. Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311-318.
3. *Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 739-755.
4. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654.
5. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 395-424.
6. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models fit the data. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 37-60.
7. *Clark S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: Experimental control and real-world simulation. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 199-216.
8. *Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987a). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629-637.
9. *Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987b). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law & Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed,). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Daubert et al., v. Merrell Dow Pharmeceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
12. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law & Human Behavior, 30, 287-307.
13. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law & Human Behavior, 6, 687-706.
14. *Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliott, R., & Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-12.
15. *Devenport J. L., & Fisher R. P. (1996). The effects of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 11, 35-40.
16. *Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818-835.
17. *Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). A preidentification questioning effect: Serendipitously increasing correct rejections. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 155-165.
18. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1996). Eyewitness memory research: Probative v. prejudicial value. Expert Evidence: The international Digest of Human Behaviour, Science, and the Law, 5, 2-28.
19. Egeth, H. E. (1993). What do we not know about eyewitness identification. American Psychologist, 48, 577-580.
20. Egeth, H. E. (1995). Expert psychological testimony about eyewitnesses: An update. In F. Kessel (Ed.) Psychology, science, and human affairs: Essays in honor of William Bevan (pp. 151-166). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
21. Elliott, R. (1993). Expert testimony about eyewitness identification: A critique. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 423-437.
22. *Fleet, M. L., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence-accuracy relationship: The effects of confidence assessment and choosing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 171-187.
23. *Geiselman, R. E., MacArthur, A., & Meerovitch, S. (1993). Transference of perpetrator roles in eyewitness identifications from photoarrays. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 11, 5-15.
24. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford, England: Wiley.
25. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 11, 8-20.
26. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 1, 5-16
27. *Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and show ups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 4, 525-537.
28. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
29. Hintzman, D. L. (1980). Simpsons Paradox and the analysis of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 87, 398-410.
30. Iglewicz, B., & Hoaglin, D. C. (1993). How to detect and handle outliers. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
31. *Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1304-1316.
32. *Kassin, S. M., Rigby, S., & Castillo, S. R. (1991). The accuracy-confidence correlation in eyewitness testimony: Limits and extensions of the retrospective self-awareness effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 689-707.
33. *Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
34. *Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 58-69.
35. *Lindsay, R. C. (1986). Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness identification from lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 10, 229-239.
36. *Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
37. *Lindsay R. C. L., Lea J. A., Nosworthy G. J., Fulford J. A., Hector J., LeVan V., & Seabrook C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
38. Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: a problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 527-541.
39. *Lindsay, R. C., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. Special Forensic Psychology, 19, 463-478.
40. *Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 303-313.
41. *Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
42. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981a). Guided memory in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 3, 343-350.
43. *Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981b). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 482-489.
44. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550-563.
45. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
46. *Melara, R. D., DeWitt-Rickards, T. S., & O'Brien, T. P. (1989). Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: Two codes are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 706-713.
47. Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 339-354.
48. *Murray, D. M., & Wells, G. L. (1982). Does knowledge that a crime was staged affect eyewitness performance? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 42-53.
49. Navon, D. (1992). Selection of lineup foils by similarity to suspect is likely to misfire. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 575-593.
50. *Paley, B., & Geiselman, R. E. (1989). The effects of alternative photospread instructions on suspect identification performance. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 3-13.
51. *Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target-absent lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 133-149.
52. *Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law & Human Behavior. Special Law, Psychology, and Children, 17, 11-26.
53. People v. Smith (2004). 2 Misc.3d 1007(A), N.Y. Slip Op. 50172(U).
54. *Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1999). Elimination lineups: An improved identification procedure for child eyewitnesses. Law & Human Behavior, 84, 167-176.
55. Py, J., Demarchi, S., Ginet, M., & Wasiak, L. (2003). Who is the suspect? A complementary instruction to the standard mock witness paradigm. Presented at Psychology and Law: International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.
56. Read, J. D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes misleading consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 91-121.
57. *Read J. P., Tollestrup P., Hammersley R., McFadzen E., & Christensen A. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3-31.
58. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
59. *Sanders, G. S., & Simmons, W. L. (1983). Use of hypnosis to enhance eyewitness accuracy: Does it work? Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 70-77.
60. *Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (1999). Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 27, 538-552.
61. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334-346.
62. Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 13, 238-241.
63. *Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
64. *Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: Confidence, decision-times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 74, 157-180.
65. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 413-424.
66. 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 & Human Behavior, 5, 459-473.
67. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law & Human Behavior, 5, 523-540.
68. Stouffer, S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Starr, S. A., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1949). The American soldier: Adjustment during army life (vol. I). Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
69. Swets, J. A. (1996). Signal detection theory and RO analysis in psychology and diagnosis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
70. *Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law & Human Behavior, 24, 231-258.
71. U.S. Congress. (2004). Federal Rules of Evidence. Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Congress, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
72. *Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
73. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
74. *Wells, G. L., Charman, S. D., & Olson, E. A. (2005). Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 147-156.
75. *Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
76. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 776-784.
77. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 155-167.
78. *Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844.
79. 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 & Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
80. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320-329.
81. Wogalter, M. S., Marwitz, D. B., & Leonard, D. C. (1992). Suggestiveness in photo spread line-ups: Similarity induces distinctiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 443-453
82. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & Burger, M. A. (1993). How police officers construct lineups: A national survey. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting, pp. 640-644.
83. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of U.S. police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 10, 69-82.
84. *Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law & Human Behavior, 66, 641-654.
85. *Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, A. L. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 459-477.
86. *Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L., & Yarmey, M. J. (1994). Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 453-464.
87. Yule, G. U. (1903). Notes on the theory of association of attributes in statistics. Biometrika, 2, 121-134.