Turning a blind eye to double blind line-ups

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 849-867

  Wright, Daniel B ^a   Carlucci, Marianna E ^a   Evans, Jacqueline R ^b   Compo, Nadja Schreiber ^a  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CRIMINOLOGY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIST; WITNESS;

EID: 78149322308     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1592     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. British Psychological Society. (2007). British psychological society submission to the home office consultation on 'Modernising Police Powers: Review of the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act 1984'. accessed 17 May 2009.
2. Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118-128.
3. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 187-218.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Douglass, A. B., Smith, C., & Fraser-Thill, R. (2005). A problem with double-double blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness's confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 543-562.
6. 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.
7. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93-104.
8. Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 70-82.
9. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
10. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23-37.
11. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106-1112.
12. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
13. Loftus, E. F. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 8, 116-119.
14. Loftus, E. F., & Ketcham, K. (1991). Witness for the defense: The accused, the eyewitness, and the expert who put memory on trial. NY: St. Martin's Press.
15. Margraf, J., Ehlers, A., Roth, W. T., Clark, D. B., Sheikh, J., Agras, W. S., et al. (1991). How "blind" are double-blind studies? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 184-187.
16. McGraw, K. O., Tew, M. D., & Williams, J. E. (2000). The integrity of web-delivered experiments: Can you trust the data? Psychological Science, 11, 502-506.
17. McQuiston-Surrett, D., Malpass, R. S., & Tredoux, C. G. (2006). Sequential vs. simultaneous lineups: A review of methods, data and theory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 12, 137-169.
18. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006). Report to the legislature of the state of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on sequential double-blind identification procedures., accessed 17 May 2009.
19. Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78, 691-692.
20. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
21. O'Muircheartaigh, C. A., Gaskell, G. D., & Wright, D. B. (1993). Intensifiers in behavioral frequency questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 552-565.
22. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-double blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940-951.
23. Rosenthal, R. (2003). Covert communication in laboratories, classrooms, and the truly real world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 151-154.
24. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25. Rosental, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1, 377-386.
26. Sebeok, T. A. & Rosenthal R. (Eds.). (1981). The Clever Hans phenomenon: Communication with horses, whales, apes, and people. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
27. Spinney, L. (2008). Line-ups on trial. Nature, 453, 442-444.
28. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal Indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1-34.
29. State of Wisconsin v Tyrone L. Dubose (2005 WI 126)., accessed 17 May 2009.
30. Steblay, N. (2009). It's more complicated than that! Lessons from the Evanston IL field data. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society conference, San Antonio, TX, March 2009.
31. Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Chichester, England: Wiley.
32. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell.
33. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
34. 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.
35. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling in social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
36. Wilkinson, L., and the Task Force on Statistical Inference APA Board of Scientific Affairs. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
37. Winter, R. J., & Greene, E. (2007). Juror decision making. In F. T. Durso, R. S. Nickerson, S. T. Dumais, S. Lewandosky, & T. J. Perfect (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Cognition (2nd ed., pp. 739-761). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
38. Wright, D. B. (2007). The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Memory, 15, 746-754.
39. Wright, D. B., & Hall, M. (2007). How a "Reasonable Doubt" instruction affects decisions of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 85-92.
40. Wright, D. B., Hanoteau, F., Parkinson, C., & Tatham, A. (in press). Perceptions about memory reliability and honesty for children of 3-18 years old. Legal and Criminological Psychology.