Effects of mugshot commitment on lineup performance in young and older adults

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 788-803

  Goodsell, Charles A ^a   Neuschatz, Jeffrey S ^b   Gronlund, Scott D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PHOTOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGY; SCREENING; VIDEORECORDING; WITNESS;

EID: 70349586559     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1512     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2005). An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 1043-1047.
2. Anastasi, J. S., & Rhodes, M. G. (2006). Evidence for an own-age bias in face recognition. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 237-252.
3. Bartlett, J. C., & Fulton, A. (1991). Familiarity and recognition of faces in old age. Memory & Cognition, 19, 229-238.
4. Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (2007). Eyewitness memory in young and older adults. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Togila (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, vol II: Memory for people (pp. 309-338). Mahwah: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
5. Bartlett, J. C., Strater, L., & Fulton, A. (1991). False recency and false fame of faces in young adulthood and old age. Memory & Cognition, 19, 177-188.
6. Bergman, P. (1996). A bunch of circumstantial evidence. University of San Francisco Law Review, 30, 985.
7. Blunt, M. R., & McAllister, H. A. (in press). Mug shot exposure effects: Does size matter? Law and Human Behavior.
8. Brigham, J. C., & Cairns, D. L. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1394-1410.
9. Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of the encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311-318.
10. Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 231, 23-31.
11. 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.
12. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. NIJ Research Report. US Department of Justice.
14. Cutler, B. R., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
15. Davies, G., Shepherd, J., & Ellis, H. (1979). Effects of interpolated mug shot exposure on accuracy of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 232-237.
16. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive Interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287-307.
17. Dorf, M. C. (2001). How reliable is eyewitness testimony?: A decision by New York state's highest court reveals unsettling truths about juries. Writ: FindLaw's Legal Commentary. Retrieved 8 July 2007 from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html
18. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mug shot exposure prior to lineup identification: Interference, transference, and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1280-1284.
19. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-228.
20. Fulton, A., & Bartlett, J. (1991). Young and old faces in young and old heads: The factor of age in face recognition. Psychology & Aging, 6, 623-630.
21. Gorenstein, G. W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1980). Effect of choosing an incorrect photograph on a later identification by an eyewitness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 616-622.
22. Haw, R. M., Dickinson, J. J., & Meissner, C. A. (2007). The phenomenology of carryover effects between show-up and line-up identification. Memory, 15, 117-127.
23. Heinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 185-198.
24. Innocence Project. (n.d.). Retrieved 29 February 2008 from http://www.innocenceproject.com
25. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
26. Kaci, J. H. (1995). Culprit evidence (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Copperhouse Publishing.
27. Lamont, A. C., Stewart-Williams, S., & Podd, J. (2005). Face recognition and aging: Effects of target age and memory load. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1017-1024.
28. Lindsay, R. C. L., Nosworthy, G. J., Martin, R., & Martynuck, C. (1994). Using mug shots to find suspects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 121-130.
29. Lindsay, D. S. (1994). Memory source monitoring and eyewitness testimony. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. New York: Springer-Verlag.
30. Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93-98.
31. Loftus, E. F., & Loftus, G. R. (1980). On the permanence of stored information in the human brain. American Psychologist, 35, 409-420.
32. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43-57.
33. McAllister, H. (2007). Mug books: More than just large photospreads. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Togila (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, vol II: Memory for people (pp. 35-58). Mahwah: Lawrence-Erlbaum.
34. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events. Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 3-18.
35. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effects of age on face, delay, and source-memory ability. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, 338-345.
36. Memon, A., Hope, L., Bartlett, J., & Bull, R. (2002). Eyewitness recognition errors: The effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1219-1227.
37. Neuschatz, J. S., & Cutler, B. L. (2008). Eyewitness identification. In H. L. Roediger, III (Ed.), Cognitive psychology of memory. Vol 2 of learning and memory: A comprehensive reference, 4 vols. (J. Byrne Editor; pp. 845-865). Oxford: Elsevier.
38. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. P., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., et al. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435-453.
39. Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31, 570-580.
40. Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 283-293.
41. Read, J. D., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., & Christensen, A. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3-31.
42. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning & Individual Differences, 7, 1-75.
43. Ross, D. R., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918-930.
44. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday.
45. Schooler, J. W., Foster, R. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Some deleterious consequences of the act of recollection. Memory & Cognition, 16, 243-251.
46. 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.
47. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
48. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
49. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implication for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
50. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75.
51. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 835-844.
52. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. D., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-607.
53. Weschler, D. (1997). The WAIS-III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation.
54. Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 641-654.
55. Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441-517.
56. Zaragoza, M. S., McCloskey, M., & Jamis, M. (1987). Misleading postevent information and recall of the orginal event: Further evidence against the memory impairment hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 36-44.