Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 22-42

  Clark, Steven E ^a   Godfrey, Ryan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRIME; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FACE; GUILT; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECALL; REVIEW; SUGGESTION;

CRIME; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FACE; GUILT; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBABILITY; SUGGESTION;

EID: 62649159562     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.22     Document Type: Review

References (137)

1. American Law Institute (1975). A model code of pre-arraignment procedure. Philadelphia: Author.
2. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Brad shaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115-129.
3. Boyce, M. A., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2008). Inves tigating investigators: Examining the impact of eyewitness identifica tion evidence on student-investigators. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 439-453.
4. Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C., & Weber, N. (2006). Eyewitness iden tification accuracy and response latency. Law & Human Behavior, 30, 31-50.
5. 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.
6. Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311-318.
7. Calandra, D., & Carey, J. E. (2006). Field guide for the California peace officers legal sourcebook. Sacramento: California District Attorneys Association.
8. Carlson, C., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup compo sition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118-128.
9. Challis, B. H., & Roediger, H. L., III (1993). The effect of proportion overlap and repeated testing on primed word fragment completion. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 113-123.
10. Chan, J. C. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). The testing effect in recognition memory: A dual process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 431-437.
11. Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 739-755.
12. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629-654.
13. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 395-424.
14. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simulta neous and sequential lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 151-172.
15. 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.
16. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 187-218.
17. Clark, S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eye witness identification experiments: Experimental control and real world simulation. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 199-216.
18. Clark, S. E., & Wells, G. L. (2008). On the diagnosticity of multiple witness identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 406-422.
19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Conn, V. S., Valentine, J. C., Cooper, H. M., & Rantz, M. J. (2003). Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nursing Research, 52, 256-261.
21. Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9.
22. Criss, A. H. (2006). The consequences of differentiation in episodic memory: Similarity and the strength based mirror effect. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 461-478.
23. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eye witness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
24. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge Univer sity Press.
25. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitiv ity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law & Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
26. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987a). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into con text. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629-637.
27. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987b). The reli ability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law & Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.
28. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O'Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behaviour, 1, 113-134.
29. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law & Human Behavior, 30, 287-307.
30. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law & Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
31. Dekle, D. J. (1997). Testing delays resulting in increased identification accuracy in line-ups and show-ups. Journal of Offender Rehabilita tion, 25, 35-49.
32. Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliot, R., Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1-12.
33. Devenport, J. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1997). The effects of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 11, 35-40.
34. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors' perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042-1054.
35. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eye witnesses' awareness on the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991-1007.
36. Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Show-up identifications: Suggestive technique or reliable method? In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol II. Memory for people (pp. 361-376). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1996). Eyewitness memory research: Probative versus prejudicial value. Expert Evidence, 5, 2-28.
38. Estes, W. K. (1997). Processes of memory loss, recovery, and distortion. Psychological Review, 104, 148-169.
39. Federal Rules of Evidence (2004). Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Congress, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern ment Printing Office.
40. Ferkenhoff, E. (2002, July 9). Man held mistakenly is dropped as sus pect. Chicago Tribune, p. 3.
41. Fleet, M. L., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence- accuracy relationship: The effects of confidence as sessment and choosing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 171-187.
42. Flowe, H. D., & Ebbesen, E. B. (2007). The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 31, 33-52.
43. Foster, R. A., Libkuman, T. M., Schooler, J. W., & Loftus, E. W. (1994). Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification. Ap plied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 107-121.
44. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 11, 8-20.
45. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recogni tion memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 1, 5-16.
46. Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality & Social Psy chology, 64, 525-537.
47. Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior.
48. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
49. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95, 523-560.
50. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psy chology, 89, 1106-1112.
51. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but inno cent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Innocence Project. Available at www.innocenceproject.org.
53. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diag nosticity 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.
54. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eye witness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1241-1249.
55. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eye witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
56. Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 58-69.
57. Laughery, R. L., Fessler, P. K., Lenorovitz, D. R., & Yoblick, D. A. (1974). Time delay and similarity effects in facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 490-496.
58. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745.
59. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequen tial presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
60. 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.
61. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pozzulo, J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness identification error. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 22, 347-360.
62. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 391-404.
63. Lindsay, R. C. L., Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., Toglia, M. P. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. II. Memory for people. Mah wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
64. Lindsay, R. C. L., 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, 19, 463-478.
65. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 303-313.
66. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identi fications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presen tation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
67. Loftus, E. F. (1979) Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68. Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12, 361-366.
69. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integra tion of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experi mental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 19-31.
70. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
71. MacLin, O. H., Meissner, C. A., & Zimmerman, L. A. (2005). PC_ Eyewitness: A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 324-334.
72. Malpass, R. S. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequen tial lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 12, 394-418.
73. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1980). Realism and eyewitness iden tification research. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 347-358.
74. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Ap plied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
75. Mauldin, M. A., & Laughery, K. R. (1981). Composite production effects on subsequent facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 351-357.
76. McClelland, J. L., & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds dif ferentiation: A subjective-likelihood model approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 724-760.
77. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550-563.
78. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigat ing the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3-35.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eye witness: Effects of age on face, delay, and source-memory ability. Journals of Gerontology, 58B, P338-P345.
82. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit-present lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 703-714.
83. Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339-354.
84. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., et al. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for per sons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 3, 265-279.
85. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: McClure.
86. National Institute of Justice (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
87. Navon, D. (1992). Selection of lineup foils by similarity to the suspect is likely to misfire. Law & Human Behavior, 16, 575-593.
88. Nelson, J. D. (2005). Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnostic ity, probability, impact, and information gain. Psychological Review, 112, 979-999.
89. Nettles, W., Nettles, Z., & Wells, G. L. (1996, November). I no ticed you paused on number three: Biased testing in eyewitness iden tification. Champion, pp. 10-12, 57-58.
90. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
91. Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Exemplar-based approach to relating catego rization, identification, and recognition. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multi dimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 363-393). Hills dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
92. Nosworthy, G. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1990). Does nominal lineup size matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 358-361.
93. O'Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Gener alizing across subject populations. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 385-395.
94. Paley, B., & Geiselman, R. E. (1989). The effects of alternative photo spread instructions on suspect identification performance. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 3-13.
95. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behav ior in children's and adults' eyewitness identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 11-26.
96. Payne, D. G., & Roediger, H. L., III (1987). Hypermnesia occurs in recall but not in recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 100, 145-165.
97. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 549-570.
98. Pozzulo, J. D., & Marciniak, S. (2006). Comparing identification procedures when the perpetrator has changed appearance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 429-438.
99. Read, J. D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes misleading consequences of enhanced contextual in formation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 91-121.
100. Read, J. D., Hammersley, R., Cross-Calvert, S., & McFadzen, E. (1989). Rehearsal of faces and details in action events. Applied Cogni tive Psychology, 3, 295-311.
101. Rose, R. A., Bull, R., Vrij, A. (2005). Non-biased lineup instructions do matter: A problem for older witnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 147-159.
102. Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 839-849.
103. Rumain, B., Connell, J., & Braine, M. D. S. (1983). Conversational comprehension processes are responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults: If is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19, 471-481.
104. Schacter, D. L., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., III, & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Policy forum: Studying eyewitness identifications in the field. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 3-5.
105. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
106. Schmechel, R. S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Beyond the ken? Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46, 177-214.
107. Schum, D. A., & Martin, A. W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. Law & Society Review, 17, 105-152.
108. Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H., & Davies, G. (1982). Identification evi dence: A psychological evaluation. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
109. Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition mem ory: REM-retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145-166.
110. Singer, M., & Wixted, J. T. (2006). Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift. Memory & Cognition, 34, 125-137.
111. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Pryke, S., & Dysart, J. E. (2001). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed in the cross-race situation? Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 153-169.
112. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
113. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
114. Steblay, N. M., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup pre sentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
115. Steblay, N. M., 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, 27, 523-540.
116. Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1379-1396.
117. Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identifi cation lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law & Human Behavior, 24, 231-258.
118. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
119. Wagenaar, W. A., & Veefkind, N. (1992). Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. In F. Losel, D. Bendre, & T. Bliesner (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 275-285). Berlin: De Gruyter.
120. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135-151) Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.
121. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
122. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
123. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.
124. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
125. Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology: Fo rensic psychology (pp. 149-160). New York: Wiley.
126. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-958.
127. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evi dence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75.
128. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Infor mation gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 155-167.
129. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
130. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844.
131. 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.
132. 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 & Law, 12, 129-140.
133. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of US police on preparation and conduct of identifica tion lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69-82.
134. Yarmey, A. D. (2004). Eyewitness recall and photo identification: A field experiment. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 53-68.
135. Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, A. L. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law & Human Be havior, 20, 459-477.
136. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory to a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291-301.
137. Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. A. (1992). A model of the diverse ef fects of emotion on eyewitness memory. In S. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 201-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.