Creating fair lineups for suspects with distinctive features

Psychological Science

Volumn 20, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1448-1453

  Zarkadi, Theodora ^a   Wade, Kimberley A ^a   Stewart, Neil ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CRIME; FACE; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; CRIME; FACE; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; MALE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 74549172453     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02463.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bradley, M.M. Lang, P.J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49 59.
2. Bruce, V. (1982). Changing faces: Visual and non-visual coding processing in face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 73, 105 116.
3. 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.
4. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D. Martens, T.K. (1987b). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233 258.
5. Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., O'Rourke, T.E. Martens, R.K. (1986). Unconfounding the effect of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behavior, 2, 113 134.
6. Knapp, B.R., Nosofsky, R.M. Busey, T.A. (2006). Recognizing distinctive faces: A hybrid-similarity exemplar model account. Memory & Cognition, 34, 877 889.
7. Luus, C.A. Wells, G.L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distractors for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43 57.
8. Nosofsky, R.M. (1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39 57.
9. Nosofsky, R.M. Zaki, S.R. (2003). A hybrid-similarity exemplar model for predicting distinctiveness effects in perceptual old-new recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1194 1209.
10. Patterson, K.E. Baddeley, A.D. (1977). When face recognition fails. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, 406 417.
11. Read, J.D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification - the sometimes misleading consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 91 121.
12. Read, J.D., Vokey, J.R. Hammersley, R. (1990). Changing photos of faces: Effects of exposure duration and photo similarity on recognition and the accuracy-confidence relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 870 882.
13. Shanks, D.R. St. John, M.F. (1994). Characteristics of dissociable human learning systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 367 447.
14. Shapiro, P.N. Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139 156.
15. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327 352.
16. Valentine, T. Ferrara, A. (1991). Typicality in categorization, recognition and identification: Evidence from face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 87 102.
17. Wells, G.L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89 103.
18. 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.
19. 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, Crime, & Law, 10, 69 82.