Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory?

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 94-108

  Horry, Ruth ^a   Halford, Paul ^a   Brewer, Neil ^a   Milne, Rebecca ^b   Bull, Ray ^b,c  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DERBY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

archival data; estimator variables; eyewitness identification

Indexed keywords

CRIME; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PSYCHOLOGY; RECALL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY;

ARCHIVES; CRIME; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; UNCERTAINTY;

EID: 84893903691     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000060     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Angrist, J. D., & Kreuger, A. B. (2001). Instrumental variables and the search for identification: From supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 69-85. doi:10.1257/jep .15.4.69
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. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., McGorty, E. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitnesss memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139-150. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.139
4. 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
5. Egeth, H. E. (1993). What do we not know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 577-580. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.577
6. Elliott, R. (1993). Expert testimony about eyewitness identification: A critique. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 423-437. doi:10.1007/BF01044376
7. Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 35-66. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011 .599325
8. 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
9. Hope, L., Lewinski, W., Dixon, J., Blocksidge, D., & Gabbert, F. (2012). Witnesses in action: The effect of physical exertion on recall and recognition. Psychological Science, 23, 386-390. doi:10.1177/0956797611431463
10. Horry, R., Memon, A., Milne, R., Wright, D. B., & Dalton, G. (in press).Video identification of suspects: A discussion of current practice and policy in the United Kingdom. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. doi:10.1093/police/pat008
11. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D. B., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265. doi:10.1037/h0093959
12. Hosch, H. M., Leippe, M. R., Marchioni, P. M., & Cooper, D. S. (1984). Victimization, self-monitoring, and eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 280-288. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.280
13. Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 366-371. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.3.366.19237
14. Kask, K., & Bull, R. (2009). The effects of different presentation methods on multi-ethnicity face recognition. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 73-89. doi:10.1080/10683160802131131
15. Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431-445. doi:10.1037/a0028212
16. Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42-52. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac .2013.01.001
17. Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x
18. Keast, A., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2007). Childrens metacognitive judgments in an eyewitness identification task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 97, 286-314. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2007.01.007
19. 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, and Law, 7, 802-807. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.4.802
20. Laughery, K. R., Alexander, J. F., & Lane, A. B. (1971). Recognition of human faces: Effects of target exposure time, target position, pose position, and type of photograph. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 477-483. doi:10.1037/h0031646
21. Lindsay, R. C. L., Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M. R. (2008). How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 526-535. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9128-x
22. 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
23. Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about weapon focus. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62. doi:10.1007/BF01044839
24. Loftus, E. F., Schooler, J. W., Boone, S. M., & Kline, D. (1987). Time went by so slowly: Overestimation of event duration by males and females. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 3-13. doi:10.1002/acp.2350010103
25. Loftus, G. R., & Harley, E. M. (2005). Why is it easier to identify someone close than far away? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 43-65. doi:10.3758/BF03196348
26. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.66.4.482
27. Maurer, D., Le Grand, R., & Mondloch, C. J. (2002). The many faces of configural processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 255-260. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01903-4
28. McKone, E. (2009). Holistic processing for faces operates over a wide range of sizes but is strongest at identification rather than conversational distances. Vision Research, 49, 268-283. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2008.10 .020
29. 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, 17, 711-729. doi: 10.1080/ 10683160903524333
30. Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 94, 339-354. doi:10.1348/000712603767876262
31. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., & 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
32. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Horry, R. (2013). Understanding gender bias in face recognition: Effects of divided attention at encoding. Acta Psychologica, 142, 362-369. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.01.009
33. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., McKinnon, A. C., & Weber, N. (2010). Phenomenological reports diagnose accuracy of eyewitness identification decisions. Acta Psychologica, 133, 137-145. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy .2009.11.002
34. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Nagesh, A. (2013). The confidence-accuracy relationship for eyewitness identification decisions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 55-71. doi:10.1037/a0031602
35. Parker, J. F., & Carranza, L. E. (1989). Eyewitness testimony of children in target-present and target-absent lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 133-149. doi:10.1007/BF01055920
36. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in childrens and adult eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 11-26. doi:10.1007/BF01044534
37. Parkin, A. J., Gardiner, J. M., & Rosser, R. (1995). Functional aspects of recollective experience in face recognition. Consciousness & Cognition: An International Journal, 4, 387-398. doi:10.1006/ccog.1995.1046
38. Pedersen, A. C. I., & Wright, D. B. (2002). Do differences in event descriptions cause differences in duration estimates? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 769-783. doi:10.1002/acp.827
39. Pezdek, K., Blandon-Gitlin, I., & Moore, C. (2003). Childrens face recognition: More evidence for the cross-race effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 760-763. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.760
40. Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kynan, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice. London, UK: Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. doi:10.1037/e665432007-001
41. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 549-570. doi:10.1023/A:1025739514042
42. Reinitz, M. T., Morrissey, J., & Demb, J. (1994). Role of attention in face encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 161-168. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.161
43. Reynolds, J. K., & Pezdek, K. (1992). Face recognition memory: The effects of exposure duration and encoding instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 279-292. doi:10.1002/acp.2350060402 R v. Turnbull. 98 Cr. App. R. 313 (1976).
44. 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. doi:10.1007/s10979-009- 9192-x
45. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156. doi:10.1037/0033-2909 .100.2.139
46. Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2008). The prevalence of co-witnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 513-521. doi:10.1080/10683160801948980 State of New Jersey v. Larry R. Henderson, 27 A. 3d 872 (2011).
47. Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims 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. 144-162). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
48. Valentine, T., & Heaton, P. (1999). An evaluation of the fairness of police line-ups and video identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S59-S72. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199911)13:1-S59::AIDACP679-3.0.CO;2-Y
49. 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
50. Wagenaar, W. A., & van der Schrier, J. H. (1996). Face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 321-332. doi:10.1080/ 10683169608409787
51. 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
52. 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
53. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Courts reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1-24. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9130-3
54. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835-844. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.835
55. Wickelgren, W. A. (1972). Time resistance and the decay of long-term memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9, 418-455. doi: 10.1016/0022-2496(72)90015-6
56. Wickelgren, W. A. (1974). Single-trace fragility theory of memory dynamics. Memory & Cognition, 2, 775-780. doi:10.3758/BF03198154
57. Wright, D. B., Carlucci, M. E., Evans, J. R., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2010). Turning a blind eye to double-blind line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 849-867. doi:10.1002/acp.1592
58. Wright, D. B., & London, K. (2009). Multilevel modelling: Beyond the basic applications. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 439-456. doi:10.1348/000711008X327632
59. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199602)10:1-75::AIDACP364-3.0.CO;2-E
60. Wright, D. B., Memon, A., Dalton, G., Milne, R., & Horry, R. (2013). Field studies of eyewitness memory. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 179-201). Washington, DC: APA Publications. doi:10.1037/14094-009
61. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01868.x
62. Yarmey, A. D., & Yarmey, M. J. (1997). Eyewitness recall and duration estimates in field settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 330-344. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00635.x