Eyewitness Identification Reform: Data, Theory, and Due Process

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 279-283

  Clark, Steven E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

eyewitness identification; law enforcement; public policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861778445     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691612444136     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. BeaudryJ. L. (2008). Video-recorded lineup procedures and detecting identification accuracy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queens University, Ontario, Canada.
2. Clark S. E.A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification.Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2003;17:629-654.
3. Clark S. E.Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:238-259.
4. Clark S. E.,Erickson M. A.,Breneman J.Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification.Law and Human Behavior. 2011;35:364-380.
5. Clark S. E.,Godfrey R. D.Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2009;16:22-42.
6. Clark S. E.,Gronlund S. D.Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 1996;3:37-60.
7. Clark S. E.,Rush R. A.,Moreland M. B.Lineup composition. 2012;:.
8. Coon D. J.Eponymy, obscurity, Twitmyer, and Pavlov.Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 1982;18:255-262.
9. Dysart J. E.,Fugal L.Improving the sequential lineup? The effects of double blind testing and the envelope technique on post-identification feedback. Paper presented at American Psychology, Law Society Annual Meeting; St. Petersburg, FL;.
10. Dysart J. E.,Rainey A.,Owens J.,Chong K.,Lawson V. Z.Double-blind lineup administration and the post-identification feedback effect. Paper presented at American Psychology, Law Society Annual Meeting;.
11. Egan J. P.Recognition memory and the operating characteristic. Bloomington, IN: USAF Operational Applications Laboratory; 1958:.
12. Greathouse S. M.,Kovera M. B.Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.Law and Human Behavior. 2009;33:70-82.
13. Haw R.,Mitchell T.,Wells G.The influence of lineup administrator knowledge and witness perceptions on eyewitness identification decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Psychology and Law; Edinburgh, Scotland;.
14. Laudan L.Eyewitness identifications: One more lesson on the costs of excluding relevant evidence.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:272-274.
15. Liu B.,Ditto P. H.What dilemma? Moral intuitions shape factual beliefs. 2012;:.
16. Malpass R. S.A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2006;12:394-418.
17. Malpass R. S.,Lindsay R. C. L.Measuring lineup fairness.Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1999;13:S1-S7.
18. Mickes L.,Hwe V.,Carlisle T. M.,McElfresh J. C.,Wixted J. T. Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society; 2011Seattle, WA; 2011.
19. Newman E. J.,Loftus E. F.A trial by Clarkian logic.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:260-263.
20. Perlini A. H.,Silvaggio A. D.Eyewitness misidentification: Single vs. double-blind comparison of photospread administration.Psychological Reports. 2007;100:247-256.
21. Phillips M. R.,McAuliff B. D.,Kovera M. B.,Cutler B. L.Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias.Journal of Applied Psychology. 1999;84:940-951.
22. Pielke R. A.The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2007:.
23. Rosenthal R.,Rubin D. B.Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies.Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1978;3:377-415.
24. Russano M. B.,Dickinson J. J.,Cass S. A.,Kovera M. B.,Cutler B. L.Testing the effects of lineup administrator knowledge in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Paper presented at American Psychology-Law Society Biennial Meeting; Austin, TX;.
25. Steblay N. K.,Dysart J. E.,Wells G. L.Seventy-two test of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2011;17:99-139.
26. Thompson-Caninno J.,Cotton R.,Torneo E.Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press; 2009:.
27. Tribe L. H.Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process.Harvard law Review. 1971;84:1329-1393.
28. Tyler T. R.Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1990:.
29. Von Neumann J.,Morgenstern O.Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1944:.
30. Wells G. L.The psychology of lineup identifications.Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 1984;14:89-103.
31. Wells G. L.,Olson E. A.Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2002;8:155-167.
32. WellsG. L.SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E. (2011). A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/Wells_articles_pdf/EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf.
33. Wells G. L.,Steblay N. K.,Dysart J. E.Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits?.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:264-271.
34. Wixted J. T.Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory.Psychological Review. 2007;114:152-176.
35. Wixted J.,Mickes L.It is time to abandon "probative value" and embrace receiver operating characteristic analysis.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:275-278.