Is manipulative intent necessary to mitigate the eyewitness post-identification feedback effect

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 186-197

  Quinlivan, Deah S ^a   Wells, Gary L ^a   Neuschatz, Jeffrey S ^b  

^a Iowa State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

Eyewitness malleability; Feedback; Private thought; Suspicion

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; RECALL; RECOGNITION; VISION;

FEEDBACK; HUMANS; INTENTION; JUDGMENT; MENTAL RECALL; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77955554762     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-009-9179-7     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anderson, C. A. (1983). Abstract and concrete data in the perseverance of social theories: When weak data lead to unshakeable beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 93-108.
2. Anderson, C. A. (1995). Implicit personality theories and empirical data: Biased assimilation, belief perseverance and change, and covariation detection sensitivity. Social Cognition, 13, 25-48.
3. Anderson, C. A., & Lindsay, J. (1998). The development, perseverance, and change of naive theories. Social Cognition, 16, 8-30.
4. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112-120.
5. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
6. Charman, S. D., & Wells, G. L. (2008). Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/ counterfactual assessment paradigm. Journal of Applied Psychology: Applied, 14, 5-20.
7. Cutler, B. R., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
8. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
9. Dixon, S., & Memon, A. (2005). The effect of post-identification feedback on the recall of crime and culprit details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 935-951.
10. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. M. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991-1007.
11. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.
12. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G, Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
13. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.
14. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211.
16. Fiedler, K. (1999). Adjustment and anchoring. In A. S. R. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
17. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. 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.
19. 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. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
20. Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Fairless, A. H., Powers, R. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., et al. (2007). The mitigating effects of suspicion on post-identification feedback and on retrospective eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 231-247.
21. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. R., 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.
22. Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J.S., Jimenez, A., Cling, A., Douglass, A. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Do prophylactics prevent inflation? Post-identification feedback and the effectiveness of procedures to protect against confidence-inflation in earwitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 111-121.
23. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in selfperception and social percep- tion: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892.
24. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday.
25. Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2006). Postidentification feedback effects on face recognition confidence: Evidence for metacognitive influences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 895-916.
26. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334-346.
27. Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489-497.
28. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
29. Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naïve theories of bias in bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.
31. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
32. 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.
33. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the postidentification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10, 138-144.
34. Wells, G. L., Charman, S. D., & Olson, E. A. (2005). Building face composites can harm lineup identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 147-157.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 42-52.
39. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the supreme court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 1-24.
40. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. J., 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.
41. Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Greenberg, M. S. (1986). The role of eyewitness confidence in juror perceptions of credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 387-409.
42. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Post-identification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.