Generalizing eyewitness reliability research

The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People

Volumn 2, Issue , 2007, Pages 529-556

  Penrod, Steven ^a   Bornstein, Brian H ^b  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649997956     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936368-29     Document Type: Chapter

References (114)

1. Anthony, T., Copper, C., & Mullen, B. (1992). Cross-racial facial identification: A social cognitive integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296-301.
2. Arnold, G. F. (1906). Psychology applied to legal evidence and other constructions of law. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink and Co.
3. Bermant, G. (1986). Two conjectures about the issue of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 97-100.
4. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
5. Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
7. Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-racial identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19-25.
8. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
9. Brandon, R., & Davies, C. (1973). Wrongful imprisonment. London: Allen & Unwin.
10. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
11. Brigham, J. C. (1988). Is witness confidence helpful in judging eyewitness accuracy? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (Vol. 1, pp. 77-82). Chichester, England: Wiley.
12. Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19-30.
13. Brigham, J. C., Maas, A., Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673-681.
14. Brigham, J. C., & Wolfskeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 337-349.
15. Burt, H. E. (1931). Legal psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall.
16. Ceci, S. J., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 403-439.
17. Christianson, S.-A. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 284-309.
18. Criglow v. State, 36 S.W.2d 400 (1931).
19. Cutler, B. L., Berman, G. L., Penrod, S. D., & Fisher, R. P. (1994). Conceptual, practical and empirical issues associated with eyewitness identification test media. In Ross, D., Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281-290.
21. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Forensically relevant moderators of the relation between eyewitness identification accuracy and confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 650-652.
22. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology and law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
24. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identifications: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629-637.
25. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786, (1993).
26. Deffenbacher, K. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Can we infer anything about their relationship? Law and Human Behavior, 4, 243-260.
27. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706.
28. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
29. Doris, J. (1991). The suggestibility of children’s recollections. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30. Ebbesen, E., & Flowe, H. (2002). Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know? Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved 7/13/06 from http://www.pucsd.edu/~ebbe/SimSeq.htm
31. Egeth, H. E. (1993). What do we not know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 577-580.
32. Elliott, R. (1993). Expert testimony about eyewitness identification: A critique. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 423-437.
33. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it “scientific,” “technical,” or “other” knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960-979.
34. Faigman, D. L., Kaye, D. H., Saks, M. J., & Sanders, J. (2002). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2nd ed.). St. Paul: West Group.
35. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
36. Fishman, D. B., & Loftus, E. F. (1978). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness identification. Law & Psychology Review, 4, 87-103.
37. 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.
38. Flowe, H., Ebbesen, E., Burke, C., & Chivabunditt, P. (2001, July). At the scene of the crime: An examination of the external validity of published studies on line-up identification accuracy. Paper presented at the American Psychological Society Conference, Toronto, Canada.
39. Frank, J., & Frank, B. (1957). Not guilty. London: Gollancz.
40. Fulero, S. M. (1993). Eyewitness expert testimony: An overview and annotated bibliography, 1931-1988. Unpublished manuscript, Sinclair College.
41. Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 64(4), 525-537.
42. Goodman, G. S., & Bottoms, B. L. (1993). Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. New York: Guilford.
43. Gross, S. R. (1987). Loss of innocence: Eyewitness identification and proof of guilt, Journal of Legal Studies, 16, 395-453.
44. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patel, S. (2004). Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003. Unpublished manuscript downloaded from http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo//exonerations-in-us.pdf
45. Haber, R. N., & Haber, L. (2001). A meta-analysis of research on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy. Paper presented at the Annual convention of the Psychonomics Society, Orlando, Florida, November 16.
46. Hosch, H. M., & Platz, S. J. (1984). Self-monitoring and eyewitness accuracy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 289-292.
47. Huff, C. R. (1987). Wrongful conviction: Societal tolerance of injustice. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, 4, 99-115
48. Huff, R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 518-544.
49. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
50. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
51. Koehnken, G., Malpass, R. S., & Wogalter, M. S. (1996). Forensic applications of line-up research. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 205-231). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 58-69.
53. Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid. Law & Human Behavior, 14, 167-184.
54. Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1987). Children on the witness stand: A communication/persuasion analysis of jurors’ reactions to child witnesses. In S. J. Ceci, M. P. Toglia, & D. F. Ross (Eds.), Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 155-177). New York: Springer-Verlag.
55. Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1989). Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses: The influence of juror’s preconceptions and witness behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 103-132.
56. Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1991). Eyewitness memory for a touching experience: Accuracy differences between adult and child witness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 367-379.
57. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Harvie, V. L. (1988). Hits, false alarms, correct and mistaken identifications: The effect of methods of data collection on facial memory. In Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 47-52). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
58. 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.
59. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., et al. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
60. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 333-339.
61. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
62. Loftus, E. F. (1983). Silence is not golden. American Psychologist, 38, 564-572.
63. Loftus, E. F. (1993). Psychologists in the eyewitness world. American Psychologist, 48(5), 550-552.
64. Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law & Human Behavior, 11(1), 55-62.
65. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550-563.
66. McConkey, K. M., & Roche, S. M. (1989). Knowledge of eyewitness memory. Australian Psychologist, 24, 377-384.
67. McQuiston, D. E., & Malpass, R. S. (2001, June). Eyewitness identifications in criminal cases: An archival study. Paper presented at the 2001 Biennial Meetings of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
68. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3-35.
69. Munsterberg, H. (1909). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. Garden City, NY: Clark, Boardman.
70. Noon, E., & Hollin, C. R. (1987). Lay knowledge of eyewitness behaviour: A British survey. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 143-153.
71. O’Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 385-395.
72. Penrod, S. D. (2003). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police performing? Criminal Justice Magazine, Spring, 36-47.
73. Penrod, S., Loftus, E. F., & Winkler, J. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony: A psychological perspective. In N. Kerr & R. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
74. Penrod, S. D., Fulero, S. M., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Expert psychological testimony on eyewitness reliability before and after Daubert: The state of the law and the science. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 229-259.
75. People v. Kindle, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6453 (Cal. 2002).
76. People v. McDonald, 37 Cal.3d 351, 690 P.2d 709, 716, 208 Cal.Rptr. 236, 245 (1984).
77. Pigott, M. A., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1990). A field study of the relationship between quality of eyewitnesses’ descriptions and identification accuracy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 84-88.
78. Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972-984.
79. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 549-570.
80. Rahaim, G. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (1982). Empirical evidence versus common sense: Juror and lawyer knowledge of eyewitness accuracy. Law and Psychology Review, 7, 1-15.
81. Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 283-293.
82. Robinson, E. S. (1935). Law and the lawyers. New York: Macmillan.
83. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
84. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
85. Slater, A. (1994). Identification parades: A scientific evaluation. Police Research Award Scheme, Police Research Group, Home Office [reported in Tim Valentine & Pamela Heaton. (1999). An evaluation of the fairness of police line-ups and video Identifications, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S59-S72].
86. Sporer, M. (1983). Allgemeinwissen zur psychologie der zeugenausage [Common understanding concerning eyewitness testimony]. In H. J. Kerner, H. Kury, & K. Sessar (Eds.), Deutsche forschungen zur kriminalitaetsentstehung und kriminalitaetskontrolle (pp. 1191-1234). Cologne, Germany: Heymanns.
87. Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: Confidence, decision times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 157-180.
88. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
89. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
90. State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
91. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
92. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
93. 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, 27, 523-540.
94. 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, 25, 459-473.
95. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement (Booklet). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/178240.htm
96. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (2003). Eyewitness evidence: A trainer’s manual for law enforcement (Booklet). Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/eyewitness/188678.html
97. Turtle, J. W., & Wells, G. L. (1988). Children versus adults as eyewitnesses: Whose testimony holds up under cross examination? In M. W. Gruneberg et al. (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory (pp. 27-33). New York: Wiley.
98. U.S. v. Downing 753 F2d 1224. (3d Cir.) (1985)
99. United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir.) (1973).
100. United States v. Frye, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.) (1923).
101. Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-994.
102. Weld, H. P., & Danzig, E. R. (1940). A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 518-536.
103. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
104. Wells, G. L. (1984). How adequate is human intuition for judging eyewitness testimony. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 256-272). New York: Cambridge University Press.
105. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
106. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
107. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
108. 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 and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
109. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
110. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
111. Yarmey, A. D. (1986). Ethical responsibilities governing the statements experimental psychologists make in expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 101-115.
112. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 13-40). Chichester, England: Wiley.
113. Yuille, J. C. (1993). We must study forensic eyewitnesses to know about them. American Psychologist, 48, 572-573.
114. Yuille, J. C., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Concerns about the application of research findings: The issue of ecological validity. In The suggestibility of children’s recollections. (pp. 118-128). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.