The importance (necessity) of computational modelling for eyewitness identification research

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 803-813

  Clark, Steven E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL RESEARCH; ARTICLE; COURT; CRIMINOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; EPISODIC MEMORY; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; EXPERT WITNESS; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY;

EID: 53849116162     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1484     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Bjork, R. A. (1973). Why mathematical models? American Psychologist, 28, 426-433.
2. Bloembergen, N., Costa, E., Herschbach, D., Karle, J., Langer, A., Leontief, W., et al. (1992). Brief Amicus Curiae in Daubert. et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
3. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2007). A role for theory in eyewitness identification research. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.) The handbook of eyewitness psychology, volume II: Memory for people (pp. 201-218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. Carlson, C., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (in press). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied.
6. Chandler, C. C. (1994). Studying related pictures can reduce accuracy, but increase confidence in a modified recognition test. Memory and Cognition, 22, 273-280.
7. Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 739-755.
8. Clark, S. E. (1997). A familiarity-based account of confidence-accuracy inversions in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 232-238.
9. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654.
10. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 395-424.
11. Clark, S. E., & Godfrey, R. (2008). Innocence risk and the probative value of eyewitness identification evidence, University of California, Riverside. Unpublished manuscript.
12. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 37-60.
13. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2007). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior.
14. Clark, S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: Experimental control and real-world simulation. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 199-216.
15. Daubert et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.
16. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1996). Eyewitness memory research: Probative versus prejudicial value. Expert Evidence, 5, 2-28.
17. Estes, W. K. (2002). Traps in the route to models of memory and decision. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 3-25.
18. Fryar, C. D., Hirsch, R., Porter, K. S., Kottiri, B., Brody, D. J., & Louis, T. (2007). Drug use and sexual behaviors reported by adults: United States 1999-2002. Advance data from vital and health statistics, No. 384. Hyattsville, MD; National Center for Health Statistics.
19. Frye v. U.S. (1923). 54 App. D.C. 46, 293.
20. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Oxford, England; Wiley.
21. Hintzman, D. L. (1993). Why are formal models useful in psychology? In W. E. Hockley, & S. Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock. (pp. 39-56 C). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. 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, and Cognition, 22, 1304-1316.
23. Kolata, G. (Aug. 12, 2007). The myth, the math, the sex. New York Times.
24. Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). A 'middle road' approach to bridging the basic - applied divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779-787. DOI; 10.1002/ acp.1482
25. Leahy, T. H., & Harris, R. J. (1985). Human learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice-Hall.
26. 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 and Human Behavior, 18, 527-541.
27. Loftus, E. F. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.
28. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
29. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G., Compo, N. S., McQuiston-Surrett, D., MacLin, O. H., Zimmerman, L. A., et al. (2008). Study space analysis for policy development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 789-801. DOI: 10.1002/acp.1483
30. McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data, and theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 137-169.
31. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 603-616.
32. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups; A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783-792.
33. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effects of age on face, delay, and source-memory ability. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58B, P338-P345.
34. Navon, D. (1992). Selection of lineup foils by similarity to suspect is likely to misfire. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 575-593.
35. Ogloff, J. R. P. (2000). Two steps forward and one step backward: The law and psychology movement(s) in the 20th century. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 457-483.
36. Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, H. M. (1981). Search of associative memory. Psychological Review, 88, 93-134.
37. Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.
38. Slamecka, N. J. (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 504-513,
39. Slamecka, N. J. (1972). The question of associative growth in the learning of categorized materials. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 324-332.
40. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
41. 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 and Human Behavior, 5, 459-473.
42. Stolle, D. P., Robbennolt, J. K., Patry, M., & Penrod, S. D. (2002). Fractional factorial designs for legal psychology. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 5-17.
43. Tulving, E. (1981). Similarity relations in recognition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 479-496.
44. Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law & Human Behavior, 24, 231-258.
45. Turtle, J., Read, J. D., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2008). Toward a more informative psychological science of eyewitness evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 769-778. DOI: 10.1002/ acp.1481
46. U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness Identification: A Guide for Law Enforcement.
47. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
48. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844.
49. 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.
50. Wilcock, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2005). Aiding the performance of older eyewitnesses: Enhanced non-biased line-up instructions and line-up presentation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 129-140.
51. Wogalter, M. S., Maplass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of US police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69-82.