Eyewitness Identification: Issues in Common Knowledge and Generalization

Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 157-176

  Wells, Gary L ^a   Hasel, Lisa E ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Circumstances; DNA testing; Eyewitness identification; Legal system; Postidentification feedback

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953453236     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9780470696422.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (48)

1. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
2. Boring, E. G. (1954). The nature and history of experimental control. American Journal of Psychology, 67, 573-589.
3. Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 581-594.
4. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112-120.
5. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 353-364.
6. Choi, I., & Nisbett, R. E. (2000). Cultural psychology of surprise: Holistic theories and recognition of contradiction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 890-905.
7. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: evaluating commonsense evaluations, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 338-361.
9. Douglass, A. B. & Steblay, N. (2006) Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991-1007.
10. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting the adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of selfgenerated and experimenter-provided anchor. Psychological Science, 12, 391-396.
12. 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.
13. Garrioch, L. & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators' expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299-315.
14. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
15. Hafstad, G. S., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901-912.
16. Harris, M. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Mediation of interpersonal expectancy effects: 31 meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 363-386.
17. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.
18. Junkin, T. (2004) Bloodsworth: The true story of the first death row inmate exonerated by DNA. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin.
19. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1241-1249.
20. 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.
21. Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events. American Psychologist, 43, 431-442.
22. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Twenty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35.
23. Mill, J. S. (1851). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive: being a connected view of principles of evidence and methods of scientific investigation. London: J. W. Parker.
24. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & Southwick, S. M. (2004) Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Psychiatry and the Law, 27, 265-279.
25. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday.
26. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
27. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
28. Pickel, K. L. (1999). The influence of context on the "weapon focus" effect. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 299-311.
29. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Random House.
30. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334-346.
31. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
32. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-298.
33. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Avaliability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
34. 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.
35. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.
36. Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 615-643.
37. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A.L. (1998). "Good, you identified the suspect:" Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 360-376.
38. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the postidentification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
39. 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.
40. Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A. Goldstein (Ed.). Comprehensive handbook of psychology, Vol. 11, Forensic psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
41. Wells, G. L., & Luus, E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly-conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106-117.
42. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581-598.
43. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. (2003). Eyewitness identification. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277-295.
45. Wells, G. L., Olson, E., & Charman, S. (2002). Eyewitness identification confidence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 151-154.
46. Wells, G. L., Olson, E., & Charman, S. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42-52.
47. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
48. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Post-identification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.