Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 257-265

  Horry, Ruth ^a   Memon, Amina ^b   Wright, Daniel B ^c   Milne, Rebecca ^d  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

archival data; estimator variables; eyewitness identification

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871867132     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/h0093959     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Bates, D. & Maechler, M. (2010). Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-37. http://CRAN.R-project.org/ packagelme4
2. Behrman, B. W. & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491. doi:10.1023/A:1012840831846 (Pubitemid 33743583)
3. 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. (Pubitemid 43396098)
4. 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. doi:10.1037/1076- 898X.14.2.118
5. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., McGorty, E. K. & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness's memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139-150. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.139
6. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D. & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687-706. doi:10.1007/ s10979-004-0565-x (Pubitemid 41271291)
7. Dror, I. E. & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 600-616. (Pubitemid 43955743)
8. Duckworth, T. S. & Kreiner, D. S. (2009). Effect on eyewitness accuracy when eyewitnesses are told versus not told that they will be allowed a second viewing. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 24, 30-35. doi:10.1007/s11896-008-9034-7
9. Ebbesen, E. B. & Flowe, H. D. (2002). Simultaneous v. Sequential lineups: What do we really know? Accessed online August 25, 2010, http:// www.psy.ucsd.edu/%7eeebbesen/SimSeq.htm
10. Egeth, H. E. (1993). What do we not know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 577-580. doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.48.5.553
11. Flowe, H. D. & Ebbesen, E. B. (2007). The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 33-52. doi:10.1007/s10979-006- 9045-9
12. Gronlund, S. D., Carlson, C. A., Dailey, S. B. & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Robustness of the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 140-152. doi:10.1037/a0015082
13. Harrison, V. & Hole, G. (2009). Evidence for a contact-based explanation of the own-age bias in face recognition. Psycho-nomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 264-269. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.264
14. Hasel, L. E. & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122-126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008 .02262.x
15. Havard, C. & Memon, A. (2009). The influence of face age on identification from a video line-up: A comparison between older and younger adults. Memory, 17, 847-859. doi:10.1080/09658 210903277318
16. Hugenberg, K., Young, S. G., Bernstein, M. J. & Sacco, D. F. (2010). The categorization-individuation model: An integrative account of the other race recognition deficit. Psychological Review, 117, 1168-1187. doi: 10.1037/a0020463
17. Kemp, R. I., Pike, G. E. & Brace, N. A. (2001). Video-based identification procedures: Combining best practice and practical requirements when designing identification systems. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 802-807. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.4.802 (Pubitemid 33656956)
18. Klobuchar, A., Steblay, N. K. M. & Caligiuri, H. L. (2006). Improving eyewitness identifications: Hennepin County's blind sequential lineup pilot project. Cardazo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 2, 381- 414.
19. Leippe, M. R. & Wells, G. L. (1995). Should we be partial to partial identification? Commentary on the Levi-Jungman proposal. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 22, 373-385. doi:10.1177/0093 854895022004002
20. Levi, A. M. & Jungman, N. (1995). The police lineup: Basic weaknesses, radical procedures. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 22, 347-372. doi: 10.1177/0093854895022004001 (Pubitemid 126045356)
21. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A. & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741-745. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.741
22. Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A.-M. & Bertrand, M. I. (2009a). Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 14, 13-24. doi:10.1348/ 135532508X382708
23. Lindsay, R. C. L., Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Leach, A.-M. & Bertrand, M. I. (2009b). Beyond sequential presentation: Misconceptions and misrepresentations of sequential lineups. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 14, 31-34. doi:10.1348/135532508X382104
24. Lindsay, R. C. L., Ross, D. F., Read, J. D. & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of eyewitness psychology, volume II: Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. 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. doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.70.3.556
26. MacLin, O. H. & Phelan, C. M. (2007). PC-Eyewitness: Evaluating the New Jersey method. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 242-247.
27. Malpass, R. S. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 12, 394-418. doi:10.1037/ 1076-8971.1.12.4.394 (Pubitemid 44866550)
28. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G. & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009a). Public policy and sequential lineups. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 14, 1-12. doi:10.1348/135532508X384102
29. Malpass, R. S., Tredoux, C. G. & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2009b). Response to Lindsay, Mansour, Beaudry, Leach, and Bertrand's "Sequential lineup presentation: Patterns and policy". Legal & Criminological Psychology, 14, 25-30. doi:10.1348/135532508 384094
30. Mecklenburg, S. H. (2006). Report to the legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois pilot program on double-blind, sequential lineup procedures. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Police.
31. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R. & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effects of age on face, delay, and source-memory ability. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 58B, P338-P345. doi:10.1093/ geronb/58.6.P338 (Pubitemid 37467314)
32. Memon, A., Havard, C., Clifford, B., Gabbert, F. & Watt, M. (2011). A field evaluation of the VIPER system: A new technique for eliciting eyewitness evidence. Psychology, Crime, & Law. Published online 1st February 2011.
33. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., . . . Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265-279. doi:10.1016/ j.ijlp.2004.03.004
34. Mu?nsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company.
35. Perfect, T. J. & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31, 570-580. (Pubitemid 36759314)
36. Pickel, K. L. (2007). Remembering and identifying menacing perpetrators: Exposure to violence and the weapon focus effect. In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, volume II: Memory for people (pp. 339-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
37. Sauer, J. D., Brewer, N. & Wells, G. L. (2008). Is there a magical time boundary for diagnosing eyewitness identification accuracy in sequential line-ups? Legal & Criminological Psychology, 13, 123-135. doi: 10.1348/135532506X159203 (Pubitemid 351300685)
38. Schacter, D. L., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., et al. (2008). Policy forum: Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 3-5. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9093-9
39. Simon, D., Snow, C. J. & Read, S. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 814-837. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.814 (Pubitemid 38707124)
40. Slater, A. (1994). Identification lineups: A scientific evaluation. Police Research Award Scheme. London: Police Research Group, Home Office.
41. Spinney, L. (2008). Eyewitness identification: Line-ups on trial. Nature, 453, 442-444. doi:10.1038/453442a (Pubitemid 351733294)
42. Sporer, S. L. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 36-97. doi: 10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.36 (Pubitemid 33656933)
43. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D. & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315
44. Steblay, N. K. (2008). Commentary on "Studying eyewitness investigations in the field": A look forward. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 11-15. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9105-9
45. Steblay, N. K. (2011). What we know now: The Evanston Illinois field lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s10979-009- 9207-7
46. Steblay, N. K., Dietrich, H. L., Ryan, S. L., Raczynski, J. L. & James, K. A. (2011). Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law & Human Behavior. Published online 16th July 2010.
47. Steblay, N., Dysart, J. & Wells, G. L. (2011b). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 17, 99-139. doi:10.1037/ a0021650
48. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
49. Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W. & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victim and witnesses to robbery and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 144-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Valentine, T. & Mesout, J. (2009). Eyewitness identification under stress in the London Dungeon. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 151-161. doi:10.1002/acp.1463
51. Valentine, T., Pickering, A. & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993. doi:10.1002/acp.939 (Pubitemid 39517291)
52. Weber, N. & Brewer, N. (2004). Confidence-accuracy calibration in absolute and relative face recognition judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 156-172. (Pubitemid 39305490)
53. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546
54. Wells, G. L. (2008). Field experiments on eyewitness identification: Towards a better understanding of pitfalls and prospects. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 6-10. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9098-4
55. 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.
56. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W. & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581- 598. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.6.58
57. Wells, G. L., Memon, A. & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness Evidence: Improving its Probative Value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75.
58. Wilcock, R. & Kneller, W. (2011). A comparison of presentation methods of video identification parades. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1002/acp.1754. Published online 17th October 2010
59. Wright, D. B. (2006). Causal and associative hypotheses in psychology: Examples from eyewitness testimony research. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 12, 190-213. (Pubitemid 44218472)
60. Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E. & Tredoux, C. G. (2001). A field study of own-race bias in South Africa and England. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 119-133. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.119 (Pubitemid 33656935)
61. Wright, D. B. & London, K. (2009). Multilevel modelling: Beyond the basic applications. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 439-456.
62. Wright, D. B. & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75- 84. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199602)10:1-75:AIDACP364 -3.0.CO;2-E (Pubitemid 126482454)
63. Wright, D. B. & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 641-654. doi:10.1023/A:1020981501383 (Pubitemid 38420788)