A brief Guide to Factors that Commonly Influence Identification and Memory For Criminal Events



Download 77.32 Kb.
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size77.32 Kb.
Since the 1990s, several landmark Court of Appeals decisions in New York and elsewhere (e.g., Legrand, Young, Abney, Santiago, Henderson, and Lawson) have allowed for expert testimony concerning predictable patterns of errors associated with eyewitness ID evidence.
The following list of topics and references is meant to accompany the article, A Brief Guide to Factors that Commonly Influence Identification and Memory For Criminal Events (New York State Bar Association Journal, 2013). Each topic is limited here to a small number of references that exemplify the broader findings in that field, with more relevant articles or best exemplifications listed first. For a more complete set of references for any of these topic(s), or for a broader set of factors that impact eyewitness memory accuracy, feel free to contact either of the authors (contact information at the end of this document).
National Academies of Science position paper on the unreliability of eyewitness memory:

National Research Council of the National Academies. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.


EXAMPLES OF POOR IDENTIFICATION PERFORMANCE FOR STRANGERS

Across a variety of circumstances in the lab:

Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.


In real-world identification procedures:

1. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.

2. 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An

archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.

4. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real

eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.

For both memory and perceptual matching tests:

1. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, M. (2006). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two heads are worse than one. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 957-972.

2. Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2014). Infrequent identity matches are frequently undetected. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76. 1335-1349.

Multiple-witness IDs of suspect in real-world DNA-exoneration cases:

U.S. Department of Justice (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, D. C.: National Institute of Justice.



WEAPON FOCUS

Classic meta-analysis:

Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.



Some specific studies showing lower Hits and increased False IDs:

1 O’Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 385-395.

2 DeCarlo, J., & Dysart, J. E. (2010, March). Weapon-focus effect: Are police and civilians differentially affected? Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Annual Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

When weapons are only partly visible or are simply inferred:

1. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.

2. Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R. & Eugenio. P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 167-184.

STRESS

Classic meta-analysis:

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.



Real-world studies:

1. Morgan, C. A., III, 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.

2. Valentine, T., & Mesout, J. (2009). Eyewitness identification under stress in the London Dungeon. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 151-161.

3. Morgan, C. A., III, Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2013). Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36, 11-17.

4. Buckhout, R., Alpern, A., Chern, S., Silverberg, G., & Slomovits, M. (1974). Determinants of

eyewitness performance on a lineup. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 191-192.



FLASHBULB MEMORY

1. Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb memories. Psychological Science, 14, 455-461.

2. Hirst, W., Phelps, E. A., Buckner, R. L., Budson, A. E., Cuc, A., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Johnson, M. K., Lustig, C., Lyle, K. B., Mather, M., Meksin, R., Mitchell, K. J., Ochsner, K. N., Schacter, D. L., Simons, J. S., 7 Vaidya, C. J (2009). Long-term memory for the terrorist attack of September 11: Flashbulb memories, event memories, and the factors that influence their retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 161-176.

3. Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news about the Challenger. In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and accuracy in recall. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 9-31.

4. Brown, ,R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition 5(1), 73-99.

5. Conway, A. R. A., Skitka, L. J., Hemmerich, J. A., & Kershaw, T. C. (2009). Flashbulb memory for 11 September 2001. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 605-623.



CONFIDENCE-ACCURACY CORRELATION

Classic meta-analysis:

Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 691-695.



Negligible correlation under violent conditions:

1. 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.

2. 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 and Human Behavior, 25(5), 459-473.

Poor correlation for real-world criminal witnesses:

Odinot, G., Wolters, G., & van Koppen, P. J. (2008). Eyewitness memory of a supermarket robbery: A case study of accuracy and confidence after 3 months. Law and Human Behavior, 32.




CONFIDENCE MALLEABILITY
(tendency for confidence to increase over time):

1. Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 20(1), 1-18. (This is the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date, which includes Wells & Bradfield, 1998, the original study.)

2. 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.

From simple rehearsal of answers:

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(6), 688-

696.


In real-world criminal witnesses:

1. Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge: Harvard. p.64

2. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.

Jurors’ strong weighting of witness confidence:

1. Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J. F., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 282-294.

2. Wells., G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror

perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 440-448.

3. Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 817-845.

POST-EVENT INFORMATION/SUGGESTIBILITY EFFECTS

Social contagion from co-observers:

1. Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 365-371.

2. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-Witness

and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714-723.



Prevalence with which co-witnesses confer:

Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witnesses talk. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12,

181-191.

Leading questions.

Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585-589.



Creation of false personal memories.

1. Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals, 25, 720-725.

2. Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to crease false childhood memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 597-603.

3. Hyman, I. E., Husband, T. H., & Billings. F. J. (1995). False memories of childhood experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 181-197.

4. Berkowitz, S. R., Laney, C., Morris, E., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. (2008). Pluto behaving badly: False beliefs and their consequences. American Journal of Psychology, 121(4), 643-660.
SELF-SUGGESTION/INFERENCE

1. Kerstholt, J. H., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Valeton, J. M. (1992). The effect of expectation on the identification of known and unknown persons. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 173-180.

2. Wong, C. K., & Read, J. D. (2011). Positive and negative effects of physical context reinstatement on eyewitness recall and identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2-11.

3. Gruppuso, V., Lindsay, D. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2007). I’d know that face anywhere! Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1085-1089.

4. Allport, G., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Co.

5. Spaniol, J., & Bayen, U. J. (2002). When is schematic knowledge used in source monitoring? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 631-651.

6. Flowe, H. D. & Humphries, J. E. (2011). An examination of criminal face bias in a random sample of police lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25: 265-273.

7. Knuycky, L. R., Kleider, H. M., & Cavrak, S. E. (2014). Line-up misidentifications: When being ‘prototypically Black’ is perceived as criminal. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 39-46.

8. For voice: Foulkes, P., & Barron, A. (2000). Telephone speaker recognition amongst members of a close social network. Forensic Linguistics, 7(2), 180-198.

THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE

Tendency to choose, even when the correct person is absent:

In the lab:

Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social



Psychology, 14, 89-103.

In real-world ID procedures:

Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data

from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.

The suggestiveness of show-ups and resulting increased false identifications:

1. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 27(5), 523-540.

2. Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Gronlund , S. D., Wooten, A., Goodsell, C. A., & Carlson, C. A. (2014). Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. Journal of Applied

Research in Memory and Cognition.

3. Smith, A. M., Bertrand, M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Kalmet, N., Grossman, D., & Provenzano, D. (2014). The impact of multiple show-ups on eyewitness decision-making and innocence risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 247-259.



Filler selection and dud effect:

1. Fitzgerald, R. J., Price, H. L., Oriet, C., & Charman, S. (2013). The effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 151-164.

2. Charman, S. D., Wells, G. L. , & Joy, S. W. (2011). The dud effect: Adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 479-500.

3. Windschitl, P. D., & Chambers, J. R. (2004). The dud-alternative effect in likelihood judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 198-215. 

4. Wells, G. L, Rydell, S. M. & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 835-844.

5. Gonzalez, R., Davis, J., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1995). Who should stand next to the suspect? Problems in the assessment of lineup fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 525-531.



Mismatch of lineup members to witness’s description:

Wells, G. L, Rydell, S. M. & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 835-844.



Standards for lineup fairness (in addition to above):

1. Doob, A. N. & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups — partial remembering. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 18, 287-293.

2. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification lineups. In S. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating Witness Evidence. (pp. 81-102). London: Wiley & Sons.

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.



Unique characteristic of suspect’s photo (e.g., tilted or close-up):

Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D. L., & Hoff, E. (1975). Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and bias in identification from photographs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 71-74.



Suggestive instructions & comments (See also sections below for double-blind administration and for post-ID feedback):

Steblay, N. (1997) Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.

Take your time.”: Clark, S. E., Marshall, T. E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 63-75.

Choose someone”: Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.



"Look carefully and determine which person was the thief": Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., & Rauch, S. M. (2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.

Keep in mind that the culprit’s appearance may have changed”:

(1) Porter, D., Moss, A., Reisberg, D. (2014). The appearance-change instruction does not improve line-up identification accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 151-160.

(2) Molinaro, P. F., Arndorfer, A., & Charman, S. D. (2013). Appearance-change instruction effects on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy are not moderated by amount of appearance change. Law and Human Behavior, 37(6), 432-440.



"Could that be him?" Clark, S. E., Marshall, T. E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 63-75.

Recommendation to instruct witnesses that the perpetrator may not be present:

Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., & Rauch, S. M. (2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.



Biases introduced when ID procedure is not double-blind (i.e., when administrator knows who the suspect is) (See also sections on instructions and on feedback):

1. Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 70-82.

2. Clark, S. E., Brower, G. L., Rosenthal, R., Hicks, J. M., & Moreland, M. B. (2013). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification and eyewitness confidence. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 158-165.

3. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators’ expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25(3), 299-315.

4. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Post-ID feedback (See also immediately preceding section on double-blind administration):

1. Most comprehensive meta-analysis to date: Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 20(1), 1-18.

2. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859-869.

3. 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.



Feedback effects with actual eyewitnesses to crimes:

1. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.

2. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1-24.

Subtle feedback “Thank you. You have been a really great witness”:

Dysart, J. E., Lawson, V. Z., & Rainey, A. (2012). Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 312-319.



And co-witnesses (See also section above on social contagion):

Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-Witness and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714-723.



And indirect effects on jurors:

1. Smalarsz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014). Confirming feedback following a mistaken identification impairs memory for the culprit. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 283-292.

2. Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J. F., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 282-294.

3. Maclean, C. L., Brimacombe, C. A. E., Allison, M., Dahl, L. C., & Kadlec, H. (2011). Post- identification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 739-752.



Identification latency (How quickly the witness makes an ID decision):

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.



EXPOSURE/FAMILIARITY EFFECTS:

Unconscious transference:

1. Classic Meta-analysis: Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287-307.

2. Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008). Unconscious transference can be an instance of “change blindness”. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 605-623.

3. Gruppuso, V., Lindsay, D. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2007). I’d know that face anywhere! Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1085-1089.



Mugshot exposure:

1. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious

transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287-307.

2. Steblay, N. K., Dietrich, H. L., Ryan, S. L., Raczynski, J. J., James, K. A. (2011). Sequential

lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 262-274.

3. Steblay, N. K., Tix, R. W., & Benson, S. L. (2013). Double-exposure: The effects of repeated identification lineups on eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 644-654.

4. Wong, C. K., & Read, J. D. (2011). Positive and negative effects of physical context reinstatement on eyewitness recall and identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2-11.

Exposure effects for actual criminal lineups: Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England, A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265.

Commitment effect:

1. Goodsell, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2015). Investigating mug shot commitment. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 21(3), 219-233.

2. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious

transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 287-307.

3. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Hammond, R. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup identification: Interference, transference, and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1280-1284.

4. Gorenstein, G. W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1980). Effect of choosing an incorrect photograph on a

later identification by an eyewitness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 616-622.
CROSS-RACE ID

Classic meta-analysis: Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3-35.

During perception as well as from memory: Megreya, A. M., White, D., & Burton, M. (2011). The other-race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1473-1483.

Some studies covering common perpetrator/witness race combinations:

1. Teitelbaum, S., & Geiselman, R. E. (1997). Observer mood and cross-racial recognition of

faces. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 93-106.

2. Gross, T. F. (2009). Own-ethnicity bias in the recognition of Black, East Asian, Hispanic, and

White faces. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 128-135.

3. Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972-984.

4. Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., & Tredoux, C. G. (2003). Inter-racial contact and the own-race bias for face recognition in South Africa and England. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 365-373.
Note: Several other studies address specific combinations of race of observer and race of target. Contact us for findings on a particular combination of interest.

MULTIPLE PERPETRATORS

1. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, M. (2006). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two heads are worse than one. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 957-972.

2. 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.

3. Bindemann, M., Sandford, A., Gillatt, K., Avetisyan, M., & Megreya, A. M. (2012). Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: Why are two heads worse than one? Perception, 41, 415-435.

And real-world IDs:

1. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.

2. Fahsing, I. A., Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2004). The man behind the mask: Accuracy and predictors of eyewitness offender descriptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 722-729.
LIGHTING & SHADOW

1. Liu, C. H., Collin, C. .A., Burton, A. M., & Chaudhuri, A. (1999). Lighting direction affects recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative. Vision Research, 39, 4003-4009.

2. Loftus, G. R. (1985). Picture perception: Effects of luminance on available information and

information-extraction rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 342-356.

3. Braje, W. L., Kersten, D., Tarr, M. J., & Troje, N. F. (1998). Illumination effects in face

recognition. Psychobiology, 26, 371-380.



ANGLE OF EXPOSURE

1. Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1996). Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 986-1004.

2. Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483-484.

3. Hill, H., Schyns, P. G., & Akamatsu, S. (1997). Information and viewpoint dependence in face recognition. Cognition, 62(2), 201-222.



DURATION OF EXPOSURE AND HOW WELL PEOPLE ESTIMATE DURATION

Impact of duration:

1. Bornstein, B. H., Deffenbacher, K. A., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2012). Effects of exposure time and cognitive operations on facial identification accuracy: A meta-analysis of two variables associated with initial memory strength. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 18(5), 473-490.

2. Memon, A., Hope, L, & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339-354.

3. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.

4. Read, J. D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes misleading consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 91-122.

Tendency to overestimate duration:

1. 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.

2. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.

3. Buckhout, R., Fox, P., & Rabinowitz, M. (1989). Estimating the duration of an earthquake: Some shaky field observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27(4), 375-378.
VIEWING DISTANCE

Poor processing of identity information at longer distances

1. Lampinen, J. M., Erickson, W. B., Moore, K. N., & Hittson, A. (2014). Effects of distance on face recognition: Implications for eyewitness identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1489-1494.

2. Loftus, G. R., & Harley, E. R. (2005). Why is it easier to identify someone close than far away? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 43-65.

3. 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.

4. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.

Nonoptimal processing of identity information at distances shorter than 6 feet

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.

Typical poor performance in estimating distance:

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.



PARTIAL DISGUISE

1. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.

2. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.

3. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101-114.

4. Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Bertrand, M. I., Kalmet, N., Melson, E. I., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2012). Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 513-526.

CONSEQUENTIALITY

1. Bartlett, J. C., Memon, A., Seipel, A., Hulse, L., & Searcy, J. (2003, July). Crime characteristics affect lineup choices by young and older adults. Paper presented at the Fifth Biennial Meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Aberdeen, Scotland.

2. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification

decisions from video lineups in England, A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265.



DELAY FROM INCIDENT TO IDENTIFICATION

1. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., McGorty, E. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(2), 139-150.

2. Egan, D., Pittner, M., & Goldstein, A. G. (1977). Eyewitness identification: Photographs vs. live models. Law and Human Behavior, 1, 199, 206.

VOICE IDENTIFICATION

Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L, & Yarmey, M. J. (1994). Face and voice identifications in showups and lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 453-464.



Extreme overconfidence: Devenport, J. L., Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1999). Perspectives on jury decision-making. In F. T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition. Chichester, UK: Wiley. pp. 819-845

And feedback effect: Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Jimenez, A., Cling, A. D., Douglass, A. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Do prophylactics prevent inflation? Post-identification feedback and the effectiveness of procedures to protect against confidence-inflation in earwitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 111-121.

When a familiar voice is expected: Foulkes, P., & Barron, A. (2000). Telephone speaker recognition amongst members of a close social network. Forensic Linguistics, 7(2), 180-198.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WITNESS

Age: Elderly witnesses

1. Fitzgerald, R. J., & Price, H. L. (2015). Eyewitness identification across the life span: A meta-analysis of age differences. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1228-1265.

2. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England, A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265.

3. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effect of age on face, delay, and source-monitoring ability. Journals of Gerontology, 58(6), P338-345.



And real-world IDs: Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 969-993.

Age: Child witnesses

Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.

Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 549-570.

Trained Observers” (e.g., Police Officers).

1. Smart, S. M., Berry, M. A., & Rodriguez, D. N. (2014). Skilled observation and change blindness: A comparison of law enforcement and student samples. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 590-596.

2. Thomassin, L., & Alain, M. (1990). Performance of witnesses when giving evidence and making eyewitness identification. Canadian Police College Journal, 14, 233-246.

3. Tickner, A. H., & Poulton, E. C. (1975). Watching for people and actions. Ergonomics, 18, 35-51.

4. Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972-984.

5. Woodhead, M. M., Baddeley, A. D., Simmonds, D. C. V. (1979). On training people to recognize faces. Ergonomics, 22(3), 333-343.


HINDSIGHT BIAS (That is, forgetting one’s previous beliefs or previous ignorance)

Witness’s current confidence strongly influences memory for earlier confidence: Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness. identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 334-236.

Classic demonstrations outside of eyewitness memory:

1. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288-299.

2. Fischhoff, B., and Beyth, R. (1975). “I knew it would happen:” Remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, 1-16.

3. Harley, E. M., Carlsen, K. A., & Loftus, G. R. (2004). The “saw-it-all-along” effect: Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(5), 960-968.



FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT REAL-WORLD CASES: Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Brandon Garrett, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, examines the first 250 cases that led to DNA exonerations. Eyewitness identification had contributed to 785 of these convictions.)
THESE ARE A SUBSET OF FACTORS RELEVANT TO EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND A SMALL SELECTION OF REFERENCES FOR EACH. FOR ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ON ANY OF THE ABOVE FACTORS OR FOR FURTHER CONSULTATION ON EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND MEMORY, FEEL FREE TO CONTACT THE AUTHORS.
WE ARE ALSO HAPPY TO PROVIDE REFERENCES AND TO OFFER CONSULTATION ON COERCED CONFESSION AND DECEPTION DETECTION.
Nancy Franklin, nancy.franklin@stonybrook.edu, 631-632-7840.

Michael Greenstein, mgreenstein1@framingham.edu 781-771-5413.


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page