Belief of eyewitness identification evidence

The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology: Volume II: Memory for People

Volumn 2, Issue , 2007, Pages 501-525

  Boyce, Melissa ^a   Beaudry, Jennifer L ^b   Lindsay, R L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028058954     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936368-27     Document Type: Chapter

References (78)

1. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1171-1192.
2. Berman, G. L., & Cutler, B. L. (1996). Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 170-177.
3. Berman, G. L., Narby, D. J., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-juror’s evaluations of the eyewitness, perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 79-88.
4. Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-racial identification. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19-25.
5. Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 581-594.
6. Bray, R., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behaviour: Some methodological considerations. Law & Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
7. Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 353-364.
8. Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 7, 19-30.
9. Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., Snyder, L. D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in a field setting. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 42, 673-681.
10. Bull, R., & Clifford, B. R. (1984). Earwitness voice recognition accuracy. In G. L. Wells & E. F. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives (pp. 92-124). New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Cavoukian, A. (1981). The influence of eyewitness identification evidence. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 352-353.
12. Chance, J. E., & Goldstein, A. G. (1996). The other-race effect and eyewitness identification. In S. Sporer & R. Malpass (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 153-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364-370.
14. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law & Human Behavior, 14, 185-191.
15. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law & Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.
16. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law & Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
17. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law & Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
18. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the crossexamination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042-1054.
19. Devlin, Hon Lord Patrick. (1976). Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. HMSO.
20. Diamond, S. S. (1979). Simulation: Does the microscope lens distort? Law & Human Behavior, 3, 1-4.
21. Elliott, R., Farrington, B., & Manheimer, H. (1988). Eyewitnesses credible and discredible. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1411-1422.
22. Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). The relation between consistency and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. In G. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, et al. (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 21-28). Oxford, England: Walter De Gruyter.
23. Hatvany, N., & Strack, F. (1980). The impact of a discredited key witness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 490-509.
24. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 (16), 1241-1249.
25. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 469-484.
26. Kennedy, T. D., & Haygood, R. C. (1992). The discrediting effect in eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 70-82.
27. Kwong See, S. T., Hoffman, H. G., & Wood, T. L. (2001). Perceptions of an old female eyewitness: Is the older eyewitness believable? Psychology & Aging, 16, 346-350.
28. Lampinen, J. M., Judges, D. P., Odegard, T. N., & Hamilton, S. (2005). The reactions of mock jurors to the Department of Justice guidelines for the collection and preservation of eyewitness evidence. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 155-162.
29. Leippe, M. R. (1985). The influence of eyewitness nonidentifications on mock-jurors’ judgments of a court case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 656-672.
30. Leippe, M. R., Manion, A. P., & Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults’ and children’s memory reports? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.
31. Leippe, M. R., & Romanczyk, A. (1989). Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses: The influence of jurors’ preconceptions and witness behavior. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 103-132.
32. Leippe, M. R., Wells, G. L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1978). Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 345-351.
33. Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance. In D. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds). Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 362-384). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to the sequential lineup: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.
35. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., et al. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796-802.
36. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock-juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypotheses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 447-459.
37. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 391-404.
38. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 303-313.
39. 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.
40. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & O’Connor, F. J. (1989). Mock-juror belief of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses: A replication and extension. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 333-339.
41. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wells, G. L., & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations? Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
42. Loftus, E. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, 8, 116-119.
43. MacLin, O. H., MacLin, M. K., & Malpass, R. S. (2001). Race, arousal, attention, exposure and delay: An examination of factors moderating face recognition. Psychology, 7, 134-152.
44. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
45. McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: Theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 168-170.
46. McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1989). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: A test of the disconfirmed expectancy explanation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 20-29.
47. McAllister, H. A., Dale, R. H., & Keay, C. E. (1993). Effects of lineup modality on witness credibility. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 365-376.
48. McCauley, M. R., & Parker, J. F. (2001). When will a child be believed? The impact of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and verdict in a sexual-abuse case. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 523-539.
49. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1984). Process and outcome considerations in juror evaluation of eyewitness testimony. American Psychologist, 39, 1065-1066.
50. Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1997). Polygraph testimony and juror judgements: A comparison of the Guilty Knowledge Test and the Control Question Test. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1421-1437.
51. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220.
52. Nunez, N., McCoy, M. L., Clark, H. L., & Shaw, L. A. (1999). The testimony of elderly victim/witnesses and their impact on juror decisions: The importance of examining multiple stereotypes. Law & Human Behavior, 23, 413-423.
53. Pryke, S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Dysart, J. E., & Dupuis, P. (2004). Multiple independent identification decisions: A method of calibrating eyewitness identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 73-84.
54. Ross, D. F., Dunning, D., Toglia, M. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1990). The child in the eyes of the jury: Assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of the child witness. Law & Human Behavior, 14, 5-23.
55. Ross, D. F., Jurden, F. H., Linsday, R. C. L., & Keeney, J. M. (2003). Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 418-430.
56. Ross, D. F., Miller, B., & Moran, P. (1987). The child in the eyes of the jury: Assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of the child witness. In S. Ceci, D. Ross, & M. Toglia (Eds). Children’s eyewitness memory (pp. 121-141). New York: Springer-Verlag.
57. Saunders, D. M., Vidmar, N., & Hewitt, E. C. (1983). Eyewitness testimony and the discrediting effect. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence. London: John Wiley.
58. Scheck, B., & Neufeld, P. (2004). The innocence project. Retrieved March 12, 2004 from The Innocence Project Homepage: Http://www.innocenceproject.org/
59. Shaw, J. S. I., Garcia, L. A., & McClure, K. A. (1999). A lay perspective on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 52-71.
60. Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mockjuror decision making. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 28, 614-630.
61. Smith, M. C. (1983). Hypnotic memory enhancement of witnesses: Does it work? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 387-407.
62. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542-550.
63. Spanos, N. P., Gwynn, M. I., & Terrade, K. (1989). Effects on mock jurors of experts favorable and unfavorable toward hypnotically elicited eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 922-926.
64. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law & Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
65. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 459-473.
66. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
67. Weinberg, H. I., & Baron, R. S. (1982). The discredible eyewitness. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 60-67.
68. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
69. Wells, G. L. (1985). Verbal descriptions of faces from memory: Are they diagnostic of identification accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 619-626.
70. 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.
71. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 688-696.
72. Wells, G. L., & Leippe, M. R. (1981). How do triers of fact infer the accuracy of eyewitness identifications? Using memory for peripheral detail can be misleading. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 682-687.
73. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440-448.
74. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C., & Tousignant, J. P. (1980). Effects of expert psychological advice on human performance in judging the validity of eyewitness testimony. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 275-285.
75. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
76. Wright, D. B., & Stroud, J. N. (2002). Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: People are better with their own age. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 641-654.
77. Yarmey, A. D. (1984). Accuracy and credibility of the elderly witness. Canadian Journal on Aging, 3, 79-90.
78. Yarmey, A. D., & Jones, H. P. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence (pp. 13-40). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.