Eyewitness identification

Current Directions in Psychological Science

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 24-27

  Brewer, Neil ^a   Wells, Gary L ^b  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

confidence; eyewitness identification; eyewitness memory

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952087622     PISSN: 09637214     EISSN: 14678721     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0963721410389169     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Eyewitness confidence and latency: Indices of memory processes not just markers of accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 827-840. A position paper arguing for a focus on eyewitness decision confidence and latency in theory development about eyewitness memory.
2. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2005). (See References). A chapter that reviews the eyewitness identification literature and highlights some key methodological issues.
3. Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2006). (See References). An article applying the confidence-accuracy calibration approach to eyewitness identification.
4. Sauer, J.D., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). (See References). An article examining a radical alternative to the traditional eyewitness identification task.
5. 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, 1-24. An extensive review of suggestive influences on eyewitness identification and how the findings call into question the U.S. Supreme Court's 33-year-old law on how courts should evaluate eyewitness identification evidence.
6. Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Semmler, C. (2005). Eyewitness identification. In N. Brewer & K.D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 177-221). New York, NY: Guilford.
7. Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11-30.
8. Charman, S.D., & Wells, G.L. (2006). Applied lineup theory. In R.C.L. Lindsay, D.F. Ross, J.D. Read & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-254). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Clark, S.E. (2008). The importance of computational modelling for eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 803-813.
10. Clark, S.E., Marshall, T.E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 63-75.
11. Clark, S.E., & Wells, G.L. (2008). On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 406-422.
12. Deffenbacher, K.A., Bornstein, B.H., McGorty, E.K., & Penrod, S. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness's memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139-150.
13. 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.
14. Innocence Project (2010). Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/.
15. Keast, A., Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2007). Children's metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 286-314.
16. Lindsay, R.C.L., Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M.R. (2008). Eyewitness identification accuracy from a distance: Why there should not be a 15 m "rule." Law and Human Behavior, 32, 526-535.
17. Lindsay, R.C.L., & Wells, G.L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
18. Meissner, C.A., & Brigham, J.C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35.
19. Palmer, M.A., Brewer, N., McKinnon, A.C., & Weber, N. (2010). Phenomenological reports diagnose accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions. Acta Psychologica, 133, 137-145.
20. Sauer, J.D., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2008). Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 528-547.
21. Sauer, J., Brewer, N., Zweck, T., & Weber, N. (2010). The effect of retention interval on the confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 337-347.
22. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G.L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334-346.
23. Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G.L., Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: The unruly 10-12 second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139-147.
24. Wells, G.L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto, Ontario: Carswell Legal Publications.
25. 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, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
26. Wells, G.L., & Memon, A., & Penrod, S. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75.
27. 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.