Applied lineup theory

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

Volumn 2, Issue , 2007, Pages 219-254

  Charman, Steve ^a   Wells, Gary L ^a  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85075661266     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203936368-16     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 112-120.
2. Brewer, N., Gordon, M., & Bond, N. (2000). Effect of photoarray exposure duration on eyewitness identification accuracy and processing strategy. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 21-32.
3. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
4. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.) (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
5. Charman, S. D. (2004). The problem with introspective eyewitnesses: Can thinking too much harm the identification process? Unpublished manuscript, Iowa State University.
6. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, l7, 629-654.
7. Cole, G. F. (1986). The American system of criminal justice (4th ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
8. Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10 to 12 second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 951-962.
9. Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818-835.
10. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709-724.
11. Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 97-116). New York: Guilford Press.
12. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing view of attention and automaticity. In R. Para-suraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29-61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
13. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-233.
14. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659-671.
15. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Bellinger, K. (1999). Alternatives to sequential lineups: The importance of controlling the pictures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 315-321.
16. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556-564.
17. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
18. Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376-400.
19. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
20. Penrod, S. (2003). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police performing? Criminal Justice Magazine, 54, 36-47.
21. Perretta, S. F., & Dunning, D. (2001). Testing the automatic versus process of elimination distinction in differentiating accurate from inaccurate eyewitnesses. Unpublished manuscript, Cornell University.
22. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
23. Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36-71.
24. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
25. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
26. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pryke, S. (2000). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identification be diagnosed? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 542-550.
27. Sporer, S. L. (1992). Post-dicting eyewitness accuracy: Confidence, decision times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 157-180.
28. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
29. Sporer, S. L. (1994). Decision times and eyewitness identification accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 300-327). New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. 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.
31. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
32. Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 490-499.
33. Weber, N., Brewer, N., Wells, G. L., Semmler, C., & Keast, A. (2004). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: The unruly 10-12 second rule. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 139-147.
34. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89-103.
35. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
36. 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.
37. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776-784.
38. Wells, G. L. & Olson, E. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
39. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1986). Eyewitness identification: The importance of lineup models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 320-329.
40. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1988). What is the best way to encode faces? In M. M. Gruneberg & P. E. Morris (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and. issues: Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 163-168). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.