Are police video identification fair to African-Caribbean suspects?

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 459-476

  Valentine, Tim ^a   Harris, Niobe ^a   Piera, Anna Colom ^a   Darling, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFRICAN CARIBBEAN; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; ETHNIC GROUP; EUROPE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE DISPLAY; MALE; OFFENDER; POLICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VIDEORECORDING; WITNESS;

EID: 8744225913     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.880     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Ainsworth PB, King E. 1988. Witnesses' perceptions of identification parades. In Practical Aspects of Memory: Current Research and Issues, Vol. 1, Gruneberg MM, Morris PE, Sykes RN (eds). Wiley: Chichester; 66-70.
2. Bothwell RK, Brigham JC, Malpass RS. 1980. Cross-racial identification of faces. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15: 19-25.
3. Brandon R, Davies C. 1973. Wrongful Imprisonment: Mistaken Convictions and Their Consequences. George Allen & Unwin: London.
4. Brigham JC, Pfeifer JE. 1994. Evaluating the fairness of lineups. In Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 201-222.
5. Brigham JC, Meissner CA, Wasserman AW. 1999. Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: S73-S92.
6. Brigham JC, Ready DJ. 1985. Own-race bias in lineup construction. Law and Human Behaviour 9: 415-424.
7. Brigham JC, Ready DJ, Spier SA. 1990. Standards for evaluating the fairness of photograph lineups. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 11: 149-163.
8. Chiroro P, Valentine T. 1995. An investigation of the contact hypothesis of the own-race bias in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 48A: 879-894.
9. Cohen J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
10. Cutler BL, Berman GL, Penrod S, Fisher RP. 1994. Conceptual, practical and empirical issues associated with eyewitness identification test media. In Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 163-181.
11. Cutler BL, Penrod S. 1988. Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 281-290.
12. Devlin Lord P. 1976. Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the Departmental Committee on Evidence of Identification in Criminal Cases. HMSO: London.
13. Doob AN, Mrshenbaum HM. 1973. Bias in Police lineups - partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration 1:. 287-293.
14. Ellis HD, Deregowski JB, Shepherd JW. 1975. Descriptions of White and Black faces by White and Black subjects. International Journal of Psychology 10: 119-123.
15. Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 1995. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s. 60(1)(a) and s. 66) Codes of Practice. HMSO Publications: London.
16. Huff CR, Ratner A, Sagarin E. 1986. Guilty until proven innocent: wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime & Delinquency 32: 518-544.
17. Lindsay RCL, Smith SM, Pryke S. 1999a. Measures of lineup fairness: do they postdict identification accuracy? Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: S93-S107.
18. Lindsay RCL, Ross DF, Smith SM, Flanigan S. 1999b. Does race influence measures of lineup fairness? Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: S109-S119.
19. Lindsay RCL, Wells GL. 1985. Improving eyewitness identification from lineups: simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 556-564.
20. Malpass RS. 1981. Effective size and defendant bias in eyewitness identification lineups. Law and Human Behaviour 5: 299-309.
21. Meissner C, Brigham J. 2001. Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in face recognition: a meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 7: 3-35.
22. Memon A, Bartlett J. in press. The effects of verbalisation on face recognition in young and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
23. Shapiro PN, Penrod S. 1986. Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin 100: 139-156.
24. Slater A. 1994. Identification Parades: A Scientific Evaluation. Police Research Award Scheme. Police Research Group, Home Office: London.
25. Smith SM, Lindsay RCL, Pryke S. 2001. Postdictors of eyewitness errors: can false identifications be diagnosed in the cross-race situation. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 7: 153-169.
26. Sporer SL. 1993. Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology 78: 22-33.
27. Sporer SL. 2001a. Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: an integration of theories. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 7: 36-97.
28. Sporer SL. 2001b. The cross-race effect: beyond recognition of faces in the laboratory. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 7: 170-200.
29. Tollestrup PA, Turtle JW, Yuille JC. 1994. Actual victims and witnesses to robbery and fraud: an archival analysis. In Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments, Ross DF, Read JD, Toglia MP (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 144-160.
30. Tredoux CG. 1998. Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior 22: 217-237.
31. Tredoux CG. 1999. Statistical considerations when determining measures of lineup size and lineup bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: S9-S26.
32. Valentine T, Chiroro P, Dixon R. 1995. An account of the own-race bias and the contact hypothesis based on a 'face-space' model of face recognition. In Cognitive and Computational Aspects of Face Recognition, Valentine T (ed.). Routledge: London; 69-94.
33. Valentine T, Heaton P. 1999. An evaluation of the fairness of police lineups and video identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: S59-S72.
34. Wells GL. 1993. What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist 48: 553-571.
35. Wells GL, Bradfield AL. 1999. Measuring the goodness of lineups: parameter estimation, question effects, and limits to the mock witness pardigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology 13: S27-S39.
36. Wells GL, Small M, Penrod S, Malpass RS, Fulero SM, Brinacombe CAE. 1998. Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior 22: 603-647.
37. Wright DB, McDaid AT. 1996. Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10: 75-84.