Double exposure: The effects of repeated identification lineups on eyewitness accuracy

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 644-654

  Steblay, Nancy K ^a   Tix, Robert W ^a   Benson, Samantha L ^a  

^a AUGSBURG COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; DOCUMENTATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IDENTITY; MALE; MEMORY; OFFENDER; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VIDEORECORDING; WITNESS;

EID: 84884720762     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.2944     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin. (2005). Model policy and procedure for eyewitness identification. Retrieved from: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/tns/EyewitnessPublic.pdf
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
3. Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of the encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311-318. doi: 10.1037//0021
4. Cannino, J. T. (2006). Transcript of Jennifer Thompson Cannino's speech at Reforming Eyewitness Identification Symposium. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4(2), 251-269.
5. 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: Memory for people, (pp. 219-254), Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
6. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151-172. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2418-7
7. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287-307. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9008-1
8. 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. doi: 10.1002/acp.1237
9. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Godfrey, R. D., & Clark, S. D. (2010). Repeated eyewitness identification procedures: Memory, decision making, and probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 241-258. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9187-7
11. Goodsell, C. A., Neuschatz, J. S., & Gronlund, S. D. (2009). Effects of mugshot commitment on lineup performance in young and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 788-803. doi: 10.1002/acp.1512
12. Haw, R. M., Dickinson, J. J., & Meissner, C. A. (2007). The phenomenology of carryover effects between show-up and lineup identification. Memory, 15(1), 117-127. doi: 10.1080/09658210601171672
13. Hinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 185-198. doi: 10.1023/A:1005697431830
14. Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93-98.
15. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2010). Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 387-398. doi: 10.1037/a0021034
16. Pezdek, K., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2005). When is an intervening lineup most likely to affect eyewitness identification accuracy? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 247-263.
17. Steblay, N. K. (2011). What we know now: The Evanston Illinois lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 1. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9207-7
18. Steblay, N. K., Dietrich, H. L., Ryan, S. L., Raczynski, J. L., & James, K. A. (2011a). Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 262-274. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9236-2
19. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011b). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 99-139. doi: 10.1037/a0021650
20. Steblay, N. K., & Phillips, J. (2011). The not-sure response option in sequential lineup practice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 768-774. doi: 10.1002/acp.1755
21. The Innocence Project. (2013). Terry Chalmers. Retrieved from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Terry_Chalmers.php
22. Tredoux, C. G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 217-237. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1394144
23. Valentine, T., Davis, J. P., Memon, A., & Roberts, A. (2012). Live showups and their influence on a subsequent video lineup. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 1-23. doi: 10.1002/acp.1796
24. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546
25. Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2, 615-643.
26. Wells, G. L. (2010). The mistaken identification of John Jerome White. Retrieved from: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/The_Misidentification_of_John_White.pdf
27. 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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360
28. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.776
29. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 8, 155-167. doi: 10.1037//1076-898X.8.3.155
30. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125. doi: 10.1177/01461672992512005
31. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
32. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2011). A test of the simultaneous versus sequential lineup method using double-blind administration with computers: An initial report of the eyewitness identification field experiments in Austin, Charlotte, San Diego and Tucson. Report available at www.ajs.org