Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 17, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 969-993

  Valentine, Tim ^a   Pickering, Alan ^a   Darling, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AFRICAN CARIBBEAN; AGE; ARTICLE; CAUCASIAN; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MALE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM; VISUAL MEMORY; WEAPON; WITNESS;

EID: 8744291026     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.939     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bartlett, J. C., & Fulton, A. (1991). Familiarity and recognition of faces in old age. Memory & Cognition, 19, 229-238.
2. Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-racial identification of faces. Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 19-25.
3. Brigham, J. C., Ready, D. J., & Spier, S. A. (1990). Standards for evaluating the fairness of photograph lineups. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 149-163.
4. Brigham, J. C., Meissner, C. A., & Wasserman, A. W. (1999). Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, S73-S92.
5. 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.
6. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology and the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S., O'Rouke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behaviour, 1, 113-134.
8. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identifications: the role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behaviour, 11, 223-258.
9. Cutler, B. L., Berman, G. L., Penrod, S., & Fisher, R. P. (1994). Conceptual, practical, and empirical issues associated with eyewitness identification test media. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 163-181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Davies, G. M., & Valentine, T. (1999). Codes of practice for identification. Expert Evidence, 7, 59-65.
11. Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. D., & Shepherd, J. W. (1978). Face recognition accuracy as a function of made of representation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 180-187.
12. Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in Police line-ups - partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 1, 287-293.
13. Hedeker, D. (1999). MIXNO: A computer program for mixed-effects nominal logistic regression. [online] Available: http://www.uic.edu/~hedeker/mix.html. Accessed 03/10/01.
14. Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of confext in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 58-69.
15. Linsday, R. C. L. (1999). (guest ed.) Measuring lineup fairness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10 (special issue) S1-S124.
16. Lipton, J. P. (1996). Legal aspects of eyewitness testimony. In S. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 7-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
17. Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about 'weapon focus'. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62.
18. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
19. Memon, A., & Bartlett, J. C. (2002). The effects of verbalisation on face recognition in young and older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 635-650.
20. O'Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: generalizing across subject populations. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 385-397.
21. Pike, G., Brace, N., & Kyman, S. (2002). The visual identification of suspects: Procedures and practice. Briefing note 2/02 Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate [online]. Available: (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgbriefpubs1.html). Accessed 03/11/03.
22. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (s.60(1)(a)) Code of Practice (D) on identification of persons. Section 2: Identification by witnesses (2003). London: Home Office Communication Directorate.
23. v Turnbull and others. (1976). 3 All ER 549.
24. Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.). (1993). Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (1999). Age differences in accuracy and choosing in eyewitness identification and face recognition. Memory & Cognition, 27, 538-552.
26. Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., & Memon, A. (2000). Relationships of availability, lineup conditions, and individual differences to false identification by young and older eyewitnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 219-236.
27. Searcy, J. H., Bartlett, J. C., Memon, A., & Swanson, K. (2001). Ageing and lineup performance at long retention intervals. Effects of metamemory and context reinstatement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 207-214.
28. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification. studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
29. Shepherd, J. W. (1983). Identification after long delays. In S. M. A. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating eyewitness evidence (pp. 173-187). Chichester: Wiley.
30. Slater, A. (1994). Identification parades: A scientific evaluation. Police Research Award Scheme. London: Police Research Group, Home Office.
31. 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.
32. Sporer, S. (1992). Post-dicting accuracy: confidence, decision times and person descriptions of choosers and non-choosers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 157-180.
33. Sporer, S. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22-33.
34. Sporer, S. (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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35. Sporer, S., Malpass, R. S., & Koehnken, G. (1996). Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
36. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analysis review of the weapon effect. Law and Human Behaviour, 16, 413-424.
37. Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victim 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. 144-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38. Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161-204.
39. Valentine, T., & Endo, M. (1992). Towards an exemplar model of face processing: the effects of race and distinctiveness. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 671-703.
40. Valentine, T., & Heaton, P. (1999). An evaluation of the fairness of police lineups and video identifications. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S59-S72.
41. Valentine, T., Harris, N., Colom Piera, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Are police video identifications fair to African-Caribbean suspects? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 459-476.
42. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553-571.
43. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Measuring the goodness of lineups: parameter estimation, question effects, and limits to the mock witness paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S27-S39.
44. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brinacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.
45. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
46. Yuille, J. C. (1993). We must study forensic eyewitnesses to know about them. American Psychologist, 48, 572-573.