Psychology, Public Policy and Law



Download 233 Kb.
Page2/2
Date conversion16.05.2016
Size233 Kb.
1   2

In addition, presentation of stimuli (i.e., blocked vs. mixed) significantly influenced ORB estimates of discrimination accuracy, Z[j] = 4.47, p < .001, largely as a function of the proportion of hits, Z[j] = 5.49, p < .001. As displayed in Table 3, the pattern of weighted means demonstrated that significantly larger ORB effects were observed if facial photographs were altered from study to test and if the presentation of faces was blocked by race/ethnicity.

Studies were also coded for the length of time participants studied each target face (in seconds), and the length of the retention interval between study and test phases of the experiment (in minutes). Results indicated that the amount of study time influenced estimates of the ORB on measures of discrimination accuracy, Z[j] = 11.70, p < .001, r[s] = -.29. The direction of the effect indicated that reducing the amount of study time for each face significantly increased the magnitude of the ORB, largely as a result of an increase in the proportion of false alarm responses to other-race faces, Z[j] = 2.65, r[s] = -.09. This effect of exposure time is similar to the findings of Anthony et al. (1992) across their meta-analytic






Table 2













Weighted Effect Size Estimates (g) on Performance Measures as a Function













of Race/Ethnicity of Participant




























Race/ethnicity




False

Discrimination

Response

of participant

Hits

alarms

accuracy

criterion
















Whites

0.35

-0.62

1.06

0.38

Blacks

0.32

-0.15

0.66

0.32

Others

0.04

-0.22

0.74

-0.21

[*20]




Table 3













Weighted Effect Size Estimates (g) on Performance Measures as a Function













of Changes in Stimuli and Order of Study by Race of Face


































False

Discrimination

Response

Moderator

Hits

alarms

accuracy

criterion
















Stimuli at study and test













Identical

0.20

-0.36

0.76

0.14

Different

0.37

-0.48

0.82

0.53

Order of study by race of face













Mixed

0.21

-0.38

0.79

0.30

Blocked

0.45

-0.45

1.18

0.37

sample of White participants. Length of the retention interval had a significant influence on the size of the ORB across estimates of response criterion, Z[j] = 7.17, p < .001, r[s] = .18. The direction of the effect indicated that lengthening the retention interval induced more liberal responding to other-race faces.

Extrinsic study factors. As a final set of moderator variables, effect sizes were coded for whether they had been taken from a published or unpublished manuscript and for the date of the manuscript's publication or presentation. Results indicated no significant differences in the magnitude of effect sizes taken from published and unpublished manuscripts, Z[j]s /= 5.46, ps < .001. Weighted means for each decade are presented in Table 4. It appears that whereas the size of the ORB has significantly decreased over time for measures of discrimination accuracy, r[s] = -.22, and proportion of hits, r[s] = -.06, it has significantly increased over time for the proportion of false alarms, r[s] = -.17. Curiously, this effect does not hold for estimates of response criterion.

Influence of date of study on estimates of attitude and contact. With regard to estimates of racial attitude and interracial contact, we also assessed the effect of date of study on the magnitude of effects observed. Whereas the estimated influence of racial attitudes on recognition of other-race faces has significantly decreased over the past 3 decades, Z[j] = 16.67, p < .001, r[s] = -.46, the influence of interracial contact on recognition has significantly increased, Z[j] = 9.28, p < .001, r[s] = .40 (see Table 5). As noted previously, the increase in magnitude of




Table 4













Weighted Effect Size Estimates (g) on Performance Measures as a Function













of Date of Study


































False

Discrimination

Response

Date of study

Hits

alarms

accuracy

criterion
















1970s

0.32

-0.28

1.35

0.39

1980s

0.23

-0.38

0.72

0.11

1990s

0.21

-0.41

0.64

0.32

[*21]




Table 5







Weighted Effect Size Estimates (Z[r]) of Influence of







Racial Attitudes and Interracial Contact as a Function of







Date of Study
















Date of study

Attitudes

Contact










1970s

0.06

-0.01

1980s

0.02

0.19

1990s

-0.08

0.27

effect of contact over the past 3 decades may be due to a cohort effect resulting from increases in the opportunities for interracial contact between groups (Chance & Goldstein, 1996). Alternatively, the increase may be due to improved precision and validity in the measures used to assess interracial contact. Nevertheless, it is increasingly evident that the contact hypothesis plays a vital role in our conception of the ORB.

Discussion

The present meta-analysis has empirically reviewed over 30 years of research on the ORB in memory for faces. Thirty-nine research articles were located, involving the combined responses of nearly 5,000 participants. Analyses examined differences in performance on own-race and other-race faces across measures of hit and false alarm responses and across aggregate measures of discrimination accuracy and response criterion. Results of hit and false alarm rates illustrated an ORB mirror-effect pattern in which own-race faces produced a higher proportion of hits and a lower proportion of false alarms compared with other-race faces (see Figure 1). Consistent with this effect, measures of discrimination accuracy demonstrated a significant, moderately sized ORB, accounting for 15% of the variability across samples. Measures of response criterion also showed a significant ORB; however, this effect was considerably smaller, accounting for only 1% of the variability across samples.

In addition, estimates of the influence of both racial attitudes and interracial contact on the ORB were examined across studies. Although no influence of racial attitudes was present in the sample, a small, yet significant, effect of interracial contact was found, accounting for approximately 2% of the variability across the sample. Although racial attitudes appeared to have no direct influence on the ORB, a possible mediating role was indicated by a moderately strong relationship between racial attitudes and interracial contact, accounting for 13% of the variability.

Several study moderators were also examined across the various measures. Results indicated that White participants were more likely to demonstrate the ORB, especially with regard to false alarm responses. Additionally, ORB effects were more likely in measures of discrimination accuracy when presentation and testing were blocked by race of face and when study time was reduced. Measures of response criterion demonstrated ORB effects when stimuli differed between study and test and when the retention interval between study and test was increased. Finally, date of study had a significant influence on both false alarm [*22] and discrimination measures. Results indicated that, over the past 3 decades, the ORB effect appears to have become most prominent in false alarm responses. Measures of the influence of racial attitudes and interracial contact were also affected by date of study, such that the effect of racial attitudes on other-race face recognition has decreased, whereas the effect of interracial contact has increased in more recent years.

Theoretical Implications

The pattern of hit and false alarm responses across studies exhibited a mirror-effect pattern (see Figure 1). This pattern of responses has been demonstrated across a number of manipulations in the literature and has been deemed a "regularity" of recognition memory (Glanzer & Adams, 1985, 1990). It is interesting that this mirror-effect pattern is often captured in aggregate signal detection measures of discrimination accuracy and response criterion, consistent with our meta-analytic results. Much of the debate regarding this phenomenon has involved whether the mirror effect pattern results from a change in the response criterion for each stimulus set, or whether the effects observed on the response criterion measures represent an actual change in the psychological sense of familiarity resulting from the manipulation.

In support of the latter hypothesis, McClelland and Chappell (1998) have proposed a model of recognition memory involving a mechanism of differentiation. As discussed previously, differentiation is a process in which the perceiver focuses attention toward invariant cues that provide the best basis for discriminations within a given stimulus set (Gibson, 1969). McClelland and Chappell model this process by proposing that individuals store features of a given stimulus in memory and that these features (and their associated probabilities) are updated in the representation each time the individual encounters the particular stimulus, thereby resulting in an increase in the psychological sense of familiarity. Furthermore, this increase in the strength of the representation is accompanied by a decrease in the likelihood of responding to a novel, unrelated stimulus. Thus, as McClelland and Chappell conclude, "familiarity breeds differentiation" (p. 726).

McClelland and Chappell's (1998) model effectively simulates the mirror-effect pattern across measures of both discrimination accuracy and response criterion. In doing so, the authors note that the response criterion effects are reproduced despite the fact that the model actually holds the response criterion constant across the stimulus manipulation. Thus, the fluctuation in response criterion is produced as a function of changes in the distributions of new and old items across the familiarity continuum, and not as a result of shifts in the location of the criterion itself. A recent model by Shiffrin and Steyvers (1997) also reproduced these results and was similarly based on the process of differentiation; however, some conceptual differences do exist between the two approaches.

With regard to the ORB, McClelland and Chappell's (1998) model suggests that individuals store own-race faces more accurately and efficiently with respect to the appropriate featural and configural information represented in memory. This accuracy and efficiency may be the result of prior experience (or familiarity) with own-race faces that has led to the ability in attending to the proper invariant aspects of the face. Other-race faces, on the other hand, appear to be encoded in [*23] a less efficient manner, in which fewer or inappropriate cues are selected for storage. When later presented with a recognition task, such differences in encoding result in both differential discrimination accuracy and criterion of responding to own-race versus other-race faces. However, this apparent difference in response criterion occurs as a byproduct of differentiation processes in which the underlying distributions of own- and other-race faces shift along the familiarity continuum. In practical terms, our general familiarity with other-race faces, in the absence of an appropriate representation of features in memory, leads to differential responding in acknowledging the familiarity of the face. As such, this apparent difference in response criterion indicates the role of increased variability in the encoding of featural and/or configural information of other-race faces when compared with the more consistent (less variable) representation of own-race faces.

In summary, the mirror-effect pattern across hit and false alarm responses, together with the associated discrimination accuracy and response criterion effects, suggest a process of differentiation consistent with several recent models of recognition memory (McClelland & Chappell, 1998; Shiffrin & Steyvers, 1997). The implications of this type of model are consistent with the perceptual learning framework outlined previously, including research on the configural-featural (Diamond & Carey, 1986; Rhodes et al., 1989) and race-feature hypotheses (Levin, 1996), as well as the representational model proposed by Valentine and his colleagues (Chiroro & Valentine, 1995; Valentine, 1991). Furthermore, the importance of prior research on the influence of interracial contact, particularly with regard to the effects of discrimination training (e.g., Malpass et al., 1973) and prior experience with other-race faces (Chiroro & Valentine, 1995; Li et al., 1998), are substantiated within this theoretical framework. Although we have previously discussed the potential importance of response criterion measures in the ORB based on findings in our lab (Slone et al., 2000), few studies currently in the literature have documented this effect. Future research that more thoroughly investigates the importance of response criterion can further distinguish its role in the differentiation process.



Applied Considerations

From an applied perspective, several issues merit further discussion. First, the magnitude of the ORB that has been found across many studies, accounting for 15% of the variance in discrimination accuracy, indicates that this is an issue of considerable practical importance. Although our analyses demonstrated that the overall magnitude of the effect on discrimination accuracy has decreased over the past 2 decades, it was also observed that the influence of false alarm responses on the ORB has actually increased during that same period. We believe this to be of great practical significance, as it is precisely the existence of false alarms, namely the erroneous identification of an individual who is not the perpetrator, with which attorneys, judges, and researchers have been most concerned. For example, a recent U.S. Department of Justice report focused on 28 cases in which felony convictions were overturned due to subsequent DNA analyses. In over 85% of those cases, erroneous eyewitness identifications (i.e., false alarms) were the [*24] primary evidence that led to the original conviction (Connors, Lundregan, Miller, & McEwan, 1996).

Second, our moderator analyses indicated that both recognition and lineup identification tasks yield similar ORB estimates across studies. Although a trend was present for lineup tasks to demonstrate a larger ORB effect on correct identifications, more studies involving the use of lineup tasks are needed to better assess the reliability of this effect. Furthermore, as R. C. Lindsay and Wells (1983) noted some time ago, it is important that researchers also manipulate the presence or absence of the target such that they might examine the influence of diagnosticity (i.e., the ratio of correct identifications to false identifications) in the other-race lineup situation.

Our moderator analyses also demonstrated that the amount of study time significantly influenced discrimination accuracy in the ORB, particularly through an increase in false alarm responses to other-race faces when study time is limited. Although the application of the laboratory-based term "study time" to the crime situation may seem forced, it should be noted that many crimes involving eyewitnesses occur in a matter of seconds (e.g., assaults, murders, some robberies). This short period of time would involve very limited "study time" for the eyewitness, hence increasing the chances of subsequent false alarms (i.e., mistaken identifications) in cross-race situations.

Moderator analyses also indicated that the length of the retention interval between study and test influenced the ORB through a change in the response criterion. More specifically, this effect indicated that as the length of time increased between study and test, participants increasingly adopted a more liberal response criterion when responding to other-race faces. This liberal response criterion indicated that participants required less evidence from memory (e.g., familiarity or memorability of the face) to respond that they had previously seen an other-race face. In actual cases, the time between viewing the suspect at the crime and later attempting an identification can range between days, weeks, months, and even years. Given this influence of response criterion, the legal community should be cautious of cross-race identifications attempted after such extensive delays.

In the eyewitness literature, researchers have made a distinction between system variables--those that are, at least in principle, controllable by the criminal justice system (e.g., interviewing techniques) and estimator variables--those that can be manipulated experimentally, but that are not controllable in actual cases; their influence can only be "estimated" post hoc (e.g., the ORB) (Wells, 1978; Wells, Wright, & Bradfield, 1999). Some have suggested that greater research attention should be directed toward system variables, because research results may be more directly applicable to police procedures and legal policy. However, there is one related aspect of the ORB that does involve system variables, namely the procedures used in the construction of identification lineups (Brigham, Meissner, & Wasserman, 1999; Brigham & Ready, 1985). Brigham and Ready (1985) found that race influenced the manner in which individuals constructed lineups, such that both Blacks and Whites used a looser criterion (i.e., more faces were seen as similar to each other, and therefore as useful in a lineup) when constructing lineups of other-race faces as compared with constructing own-race lineups. Hence, there was a tendency to construct fairer lineups (in which the faces were [*25] actually similar to one another) when working with own-race faces. Further research on this application of the ORB seems warranted.



Legal "Safeguards" to the ORB in Eyewitness Identification

As we have discussed elsewhere (Brigham, Wasserman, & Meissner, 1999), several purported "safeguards" are available to defendants accused primarily on the basis of eyewitness evidence, including cross-examination by defense counsel, cautionary instructions to jurors, and expert testimony regarding eyewitness evidence. Although cross-examination has not been shown effective in allowing jurors to distinguish accurate from inaccurate eyewitnesses (R. C. Lindsay, Wells, & O'Connor, 1989; R. C. Lindsay, Wells, & Rumpel, 1981), cautionary jury instructions may have some potential (Cutler, Dexter, & Penrod, 1990; Greene, 1988; Katzev & Wishart, 1985), assuming that they contain accurate information. Unfortunately, such instructions are typically written by legal scholars who have little knowledge of the research findings.

What might more appropriate model jury instructions include? Based on the survey responses of researchers classed as "eyewitness experts" (Kassin et al., 1989) and the results of research meta-analyses, useful model jury instructions could summarize the negative impacts of several factors on the accuracy of eyewitness memory, each of which was listed by over 70% of the experts in the Kassin et al. survey (see also Leippe, 1995). These include short exposure time, high stress, misleading postevent information, and biased lineup instructions. Model instructions could also describe potential problems due to unconscious transference, cross-race identifications, unfair lineups, and the use of showups. They could also point out that expressed confidence or certainty about an identification is not a strong indicator of accuracy (Bothwell, Deffenbacher, & Brigham, 1987; Penrod & Cutler, 1995; Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995).

The most commonly cited jury instructions are likely those in United States v. Telfaire (1972), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia endorsed the use of a cautionary instruction on eyewitness evidence. The Telfaire instructions state that the juror should evaluate whether the witness "had the capacity and an adequate opportunity to observe the defendant," and whether the witness's identification "was the product of his [sic] own recollection." Jurors are told that they may also take into account "the strength of the identification [certainty]," whether the identification "may have been influenced by the circumstances under which the defendant was presented to him [sic] for identification," and the "length of time that lapsed between the occurrence of the crime and the next opportunity of the witness to see the defendant" (Cutler & Penrod, 1995, pp. 255-256).

Although Telfaire was seen by some as a positive step, researchers have noted many shortcomings. For example, the instructions fail to specify in which direction each factor should influence an evaluation of the eyewitness. Furthermore, the Telfaire decision was based largely on the five factors listed by the Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers (1972). These factors included (a) the witness's opportunity to view the suspect during the crime, (b) the length of time between the crime and the subsequent identification, (c) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness during the identification, (d) the (apparent) accuracy of the witness's [*26] prior description of the suspect, and (e) the witness's degree of attention during the crime. However, only two of these five factors have been clearly supported by research findings (see Brigham, Wasserman, & Meissner, 1999), namely opportunity to view the suspect and the retention interval between viewing and identification of the suspect. Finally, many factors shown by research to be relevant to eyewitness accuracy, such as the ORB, stress, weapon focus, lineup bias, and so forth, are not mentioned in the Telfaire instructions. n3

On a more positive note, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently held that in cases involving a cross-race identification, the defendant is entitled to jury instructions specifically warning jurors about the potential for misidentification of other-race persons (State v. Cromedy, 1999). In this case, a Black intruder sexually assaulted a White college student in her apartment. Eight months later the victim saw a man on the street whom she believed to be her assailant. The man was immediately picked up, and the woman identified him 15 min later in a one-person "showup." It is interesting to note that the victim had failed to identify the same man from a photograph lineup only 2 days after the initial assault! The New Jersey Supreme Court, citing in its decision some of the studies included in our meta-analysis, ruled that a cross-race identification, as a subset of eyewitness identification, requires a special jury instruction in the appropriate case. Namely, the instruction should be given when the cross-racial identification is a critical issue in the case, especially when other evidence does not corroborate it. Unfortunately, the instruction advocated by the New Jersey Supreme Court was not directional. The instruction indicated that jurors "may consider, if you think it is appropriate to do so, whether the cross-racial nature of the identification has affected the accuracy of the witness's original perception and/or accuracy of a subsequent identification," without indicating what that effect might be.

With regard to expert testimony, the present meta-analysis results provide additional material that could be presented by an eyewitness expert in cases involving disputed eyewitness evidence. The present findings provide strong evidence of the reliability of the ORB effect, based on the responses of almost 5,000 respondents. The analyses yield meaningful indexes of the strength of the effect, namely that it accounts for 15% of the variance in discrimination accuracy or, alternatively, that participants were over 2.2 times as likely to accurately identify own-race faces as new versus old, when compared with performance on other-race faces. The findings indicate that the majority of errors for other-race faces are false alarms, that is, incorrectly identifying an other-race face as having been seen before. This is the type of error that is generally seen as most harmful in a crime situation. The results show that the ORB is not related to the level of racial prejudice. Finally, factors such as study time and retention interval play an important role in determining when the ORB is most likely to occur.

Given both the reliability of the ORB shown in the present analysis (especially with regard to false alarm responses) and the general agreement among researchers regarding the importance of the phenomenon (Kassin et al., 1989; [*27] Yarmey & Jones, 1983), we advocate the use of expert testimony in cases involving disputed cross-racial eyewitness evidence. Although prior research has demonstrated that the factors influencing eyewitness testimony often reach beyond jurors' common knowledge (Brigham & Bothwell, 1983; Devenport, Penrod, & Cutler, 1997), the courts have often prohibited expert testimony on eyewitness identification, including the ORB (e.g., People v. Dixon, 1980; United States v. Hudson, 1989; United States v. Watson, 1978), ruling that such testimony would not be helpful to jurors. However, in a recent case, United States v. Norwood (1996), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in support of expert testimony on cross-racial identification, along with several other factors. In its decision, the court reasoned that such expert testimony would not confuse or overwhelm the jury. Rather, the "defendant's expert's proposed testimony regarding cross-racial identification was sufficiently tied to facts of [the] case and would be helpful to [the] jury" (p. 1133). The decision relied heavily on the 1985 United States v. Downing decision, which held that such expert testimony should (a) properly "fit" the particular features of the case, (b) be based on reliable scientific principles, and (c) not confuse or overwhelm the jury. Expert testimony on cross-racial identifications was also found to be helpful to the jury in United States v. Stevens (1984) and United States v. Smith (1984).

In closing, the present meta-analysis has yielded many intriguing findings that appear both to bolster our current understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the ORB effect and to illuminate new directions for future research. We believe that previous research has sufficiently underscored the robustness of the phenomenon and illustrated the potential for moderator variables in defining its limits. The current analysis sought only to bring together these findings and to discuss the potential for various theoretical frameworks that might account for the pattern of results across studies. Overall, the ORB was found to be a reliable and generalizable phenomenon, deserving of further theoretical consideration. Moreover, the strong influence of false identifications in the ORB indicates that this issue is of great practical importance as well.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Ahissar, M. & Hochstein, S. (1998). Perceptual learning. In V. Walsh & J. Kulikowski (Eds.), Perceptual constancy: Why things look as they do (pp. 455-498). New York: Cambridge University Press.


Allport, G. W. & Kramer, B. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice.
Journal of Psychology, 22, 9-39.
Anthony, T., Copper, C. & Mullen, B. (1992). Cross-racial facial identification: A social cognitive integration.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 296-301.
*Ayuk, R. E. (1990). Cross-racial identification of transformed, untransformed, and mixed-race faces.
International Journal of Psychology, 25, 509-527.
*Barkowitz, P. & Brigham, J. C. (1982). Recognition of faces: Own-race bias, incentive, and time delay.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 255-268.
Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K. deS., Varney, N. R. & Spreen, O. (1983).
Contributions to neuropsychological assessment. New York: Oxford University Press.
*Berger, D. G. (1969).
They all look alike. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
Biederman, I. & Shiffrar, M. M. (1987). Sexing day-old chicks: A case study and expert [*28] systems analysis of a difficult perceptual learning task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 640-645.
Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C. & Malpass, R. S. (1989). Cross-racial identification.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 19-25.
Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A. & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691-695.
Brigham, J. C. (1981). The accuracy of eyewitness evidence: How do attorneys see it?
Florida Bar Journal, 55, 714-721.
Brigham, J. C. (1990). Target person distinctiveness and attractiveness as moderator variables in the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identifications.
Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 11, 101-115.
*Brigham, J. C. (1993). College students' racial attitudes.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1933-1967.
*Brigham, J. C. & Barkowitz, P. (1978). Do "They all look alike"?: The effect of race, sex, experience, and attitudes on the ability to recognize faces.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 306-318.
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.
*Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., Snyder, L. D. & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness identifications in a field setting.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 673-681.
Brigham, J. C. & Malpass, R. S. (1985). The role of experience and contact in the recognition of faces of own- and other-race persons.
Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 139-155.
*Brigham, J. C. & Meissner, C. A. (2000, March). Representation and memory for same-and other-race faces. In J. C. Brigham (Chair),
What do we know about the "own-race bias" in face recognition? Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, New Orleans, LA.
Brigham, J. C., Meissner, C. A. & Wasserman, A. W. (1999). Applied issues in the construction and expert assessment of photo lineups.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S73-S92.
*Brigham, J. C. & Ready, D. J. (1985). Own-race bias in lineup construction.
Law & Human Behavior, 9, 415-424.
Brigham, J. C., Wasserman, A. W. & Meissner, C. A. (1999). Disputed eyewitness identification evidence: Important legal and scientific issues.
Court Review, 36, 12-25.
*Brigham, J. C. & Williamson, N. L. (1979). Cross-racial recognition and age: When you're over 60, do they still "all look alike?"
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 218-222.
Brigham, J. C. & WolfsKeil, M. P. (1983). Opinions of attorneys and law enforcement personnel on the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
Law & Human Behavior, 7, 337-349.
Bruce, A. J., Beard, K. W. & Tedford, S. (1997). African Americans' and Caucasian American faces.
Journal of General Psychology, 124, 143-156.
*Buckhout, R. & Regan, S. (1988). Explorations in research on the other-race effect in face recognition. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.),
Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Volume 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 40-46). New York: Wiley.
*Burgess, M. C. R. (1997).
The cross-race effect in facial recognition: A function of expertise? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.
[*29] *Byatt, G. & Rhodes, G. (1998). Recognition of own-race and other-race caricatures: Implications for models of face recognition.
Vision Research, 38, 2455-2468.
*Carroo, A. W. (1986). Other race recognition: A comparison of Black American and African subjects.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 62, 135-138.
*Carroo, A. W. (1987). Recognition of faces as a function of race, attitudes, and reported cross-racial friendships.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 64, 319-325.
Carroo, A. W. (1988). Arousal in differential recognition.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 67, 696.
Carter, L. F. (1948). The identification of "racial membership."
Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 339-341.
Chance, J. E. & Goldstein, A. G. (1979). Reliability of face recognition performance.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 115-117.
Chance, J. E. & Goldstein, A. G. (1987). Retention interval and face recognition: Response latency measures.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 415-418.
Chance, J. E. & Goldstein, A. G. (1996). The other-race effect and eyewitness identification. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.),
Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 153-176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Chance, J. E., Goldstein, A. G. & McBride, L. (1975). Differential experience and recognition memory for faces.
Journal of Social Psychology, 97, 243-253.
*Chance, J. E., Turner, A. L. & Goldstein, A. G. (1982). Development of differential recognition for own- and other-race faces.
Journal of Psychology, 112, 29-37.
*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.
Christensen, E. E., Murry, R. C., Holland, K., Reynolds, J., Landay, M. J. & Moore, J. G. (1981). The effect of search time on perception.
Radiology, 138, 361-365.
Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N. & McEwan, T. (1996).
Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
*Cross, J. F., Cross, J. & Daly, J. (1971). Sex, race, age, and beauty as factors in recognition of faces.
Perception and Psychophysics, 10, 393-396.
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R. & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Nonadversarial methods for sensitizing jurors to eyewitness evidence.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1197-1207.
Cutler, B. L. & Penrod, S. D. (1995).
Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Devenport, J. L., Penrod, S. D. & Cutler, B. L. (1997). Eyewitness identification evidence: Evaluating commonsense evaluations.
Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 3, 338-361.
*Devine, P. G. & Malpass, R. S. (1985). Orienting strategies in differential face recognition.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 33-40.
Diamond, R. & Carey, S. (1986). Why faces are and are not special: An effect of expertise.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 107-117.
Doty, N. D. (1998). The influence of nationality on the accuracy of face and voice recognition.
American Journal of Psychology, 111, 191-214.
Elliott, D. N. & Wittenberg, B. H. (1955). Accuracy of identification of Jewish and non-Jewish photographs.
Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 51, 339-341.
Elliott, E. S., Wills, E. J. & Goldstein, A. G. (1973). The effects of discrimination training on the recognition of White and Oriental faces.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 71-73.
Ellis, H. D., Davies, G. M. & McMurran, M. M. (1979). Recall of White and Black faces by White and Black witnesses using the Photofit system.
Human Factors, 21, 55-59.
[*30] *Ellis, H. D. & Deregowski, J. B. (1981). Within-race and between-race recognition of transformed and untransformed faces.
American Journal of Psychology, 94, 27-35.
Ellis, H. D., Deregowski, J. B. & Shepherd, J. W. (1975). Descriptions of White and Black faces by White and Black subjects.
International Journal of Psychology, 10, 119-123.
*Fallshore, M. & Schooler, J. W. (1995). Verbal vulnerability of perceptual expertise.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1608-1623.

Farah, M. J., Wilson, K. D., Drain, M. & Tanaka, J. N. (1998). What is "special" about face perception?
Psychological Review, 105, 482-498.
Feinman, S. & Entwisle, D. R. (1976). Children's ability to recognize other children's faces.
Child Development, 47, 506-510.
*Galper, R. E. (1973). "Functional race membership" and recognition of faces.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 37, 455-462.

Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual
learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Glanzer, M. & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory.
Memory & Cognition, 13, 8-20.
Glanzer, M. & Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 5-16.
Goldstein, A. G. (1979). Race-related variation of facial features: Anthropometric data I.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 187-190.
Goldstein, A. G. & Chance, J. E. (1971). Visual recognition memory for complex configurations.
Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 237-241.
Goldstein, A. G. & Chance, J. E. (1976). Measuring psychological similarity of faces.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 7, 407-408.
Goldstein, A. G. & Chance, J. E. (1978). Judging face similarity in own and other races.
Journal of Psychology, 98, 185-193.
Goldstein, A. G. & Chance, J. E. (1979). Do "foreign" faces really look alike?
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 111-113.
*Goldstein, A. G. & Chance, J. E. (1980). Memory for faces and schema theory.
Journal of Psychology, 105, 47-59.
Goldstein, A. G. & Chance, J. E. (1985). Effects of training on Japanese faces recognition: Reduction of the other-race effect.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 211-214.
Green, D. & Swets, J. (1966).
Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Greene, E. (1988). Judge's instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252-276.
Haider, H. & Frensch, P. A. (1996). The role of information reduction in skill acquisition.
Cognitive Psychology, 30, 304-337.
Haider, H. & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 172-190.
Hedges, L. V. (1994). Fixed effects models. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285-299). New York: Sage.
Hedges, L. V. & Olkin, I. (1985).
Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Helsen, W. & Pauwels, J. M. (1993). The relationship between expertise and visual information processing in sport. In J. L. Starkes, & F. Allard (Eds.),
Cognitive issues in motor expertise (pp. 109-134). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
[*31] Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multipletrace memory model.
Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
Hirshman, E. (1995). Decision processes in recognition memory: Criterion shifts and the list-strength paradigm.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 302-313.
Horowitz, E. L. & Horowitz, R. E. (1938). Development of social attitudes in children.
Sociometry, 1, 301-338.
Hosie, J. A. & Milne, A. B. (1995). Distinctiveness and memory for unfamiliar faces. In T. Valentine (Ed.),
Cognitive and computational aspects of face recognition (pp. 95-112). London: Routledge.
*Jalbert, N. L. & Getting, J. (1992). Racial and gender issues in facial recognition. In F. Losel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.),
Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 309-316). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
Johnson, B. T., Mullen, B. & Salas, E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 94-106.
Johnson, K. E. & Mervis, C. B. (1997). Effects of varying levels of expertise on the basic level of categorization.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 126, 248-277.
Johnson, K. E. & Mervis, C. B. (1998). Impact of intuitive theories on feature recruitment throughout the continuum of expertise.
Memory & Cognition, 26, 382-401.
Kamphaus, R. W., Beres, K. A., Kaufman, A. S. & Kaufman, N. L. (1996). The Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). In C. S. Newmark (Ed.),
Major psychological assessment instruments (pp. 348-399). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C. & Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts.
American Psychologist, 44, 1089-1098.
Katzev, R. D. & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making.
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76, 733-745.
*Lavrakas, P. J., Buri, J. R. & Mayzner, M. S. (1976). A perspective on the recognition of other race faces.
Perception & Psychophysics, 20, 475-481.
Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909-959.
Lesgold, A., Glaser, R., Rubinson, H., Klopfer, D., Feltovich, P. & Wang, Y. (1988). Expertise in a complex skill: Diagnosing x-ray pictures. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.),
The nature of expertise (pp. 311-342). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Levin, D. T. (1996). Classifying faces by race: The structure of face categories.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1364-1382.
Levin, D. T. & Lacruz, I. (1999, November).
An alternative to the encoding expertise explanation for the cross-race recognition deficit. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles, CA.
*Li, J. C., Dunning, D. & Malpass, R. S. (1998, March).
Cross-racial identification among European-Americans: Basketball fandom and the contact hypothesis. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.
Lickson, J. (1974).
David Charles: The story of the Quincy Five. Tallahassee, FL: Mockingbird Press, Inc.
*Lindsay, D. S., Jack, P. C. & Christian, M. A. (1991). Other-race face perception.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 587-589.
Lindsay, R. C. & Wells, G. L. (1983). What do we really know about cross-race eyewitness identification? In S. M. A. Lloyd-Boystock, & B. R. Clifford (Eds.), [*32]
Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 219-234). New York: Wiley.
Lindsay, R. C., 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.
Lindsay, R. C., Wells, G. L. & Rumpel, C. M. (1981). Can people detect eyewitness-identification accuracy within and across situations?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 79-89.
Lindzey, G. & Rogolsky, S. (1950). Prejudice and identification of minority group membership.
Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 45, 37-53.
Lipsey, M. W. (1994). Identifying potentially interesting variables and analysis opportunities. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 111-124). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Luce, T. S. (1974). The role of experience in inter-racial recognition.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 39-41.
Macmillan, N. A. & Creelman, C. D. (1990). Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and "nonparametric" indexes.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 401-413.
Malina, A. C., Bowers, D. A., Millis, S. R. & Uekert, S. (1998). Internal consistency of the Warrington Recognition Memory Test.
Perceptual & Motor Skills, 86, 1320-1322.
*Malpass, R. S. (1974, September).
Racial bias in eyewitness identification. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.
Malpass, R. S. (1981). Training in face recognition. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.),
Perceiving and remembering faces (pp. 271-285). London: Academic Press.
Malpass, R. S. (1988).
Psychological differentiation, gaze and face recognition. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Volume 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 145-150). New York: Wiley.
Malpass, R. S. (1990). An excursion into utilitarian analyses, with side trips.
Behavioral Science Research, 24, 1-15.
Malpass, R. S., Corey, D., Parada, M., Chavez, J., Bowles, S. & McQuiston, D. (1998, March).
Reliability of face recognition: Take two. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.
Malpass, R. S., Erskine, D. M. & Vaughn, L. L. (1988, April).
Matching own- and other-race faces. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Buffalo, NY.
*Malpass, R. S. & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own- and other-race faces.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 330-334.
*Malpass, R. S., Lavigueur, H. & Weldon, D. E. (1973). Verbal and visual training in face recognition.
Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 283-292.
McClelland, J. L. & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory.
Psychological Review, 105, 724-760.
Meissner, C. A. & Brigham, J. C. (in press). A meta-analysis of the verbal overshadowing effect in face identification.
Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Myles-Worsley, M., Johnston, W. A. & Simons, M. A. (1988). The influence of expertise on x-ray image processing.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 553-557.
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
[*33] *Ng, W. & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1994). Cross-race facial recognition: Failure of the contact hypothesis.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 217-232.
*O'Toole, A. J., Deffenbacher, K. A., Valentin, D. & Abdi, H. (1994). Structural aspects of face recognition and the other-race effect.
Memory & Cognition, 22, 208-224.
Padgett, K. (1997).
A categorical investigation of the other-race effect in cross-race facial recognition. Unpublished honor's thesis, Florida State University.
Penrod, S. D. & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 817-845.
People v. Dixon, 410 N.E. 2d 252 (Ill. App. 1980).
*Platz, S. J. & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972-984.
Proctor, R. W. & Dutta, A. (1995). Perceptual skill.
Skill acquisition and human performance (pp. 33-65). London: Sage Publications.
Prospero, M., Corey, D., Malpass, R. S., Parada, M. & Schreiber, N. (1996, February).
Is face recognition an ability? On the reliability of face recognition. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Hilton Head, SC.
*Rattner, A., Weimann, G. & Fishman, G. (1990). Cross-ethnic identifications and misidentifications by Israelis.
Sociology & Social Research, 74, 73-79.
Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper, & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301-322). New York: Sage.
Reingold, E. M., Charness, N., Pomplun, M. & Stampe, D. M. (in press). Visual span in expert chess players: Evidence from eye movements.
Psychological Science.
*Rhodes, G., Brake, S., Taylor, K. & Tan, S. (1989). Expertise and configural coding in face recognition.
British Journal of Psychology, 80, 313-331.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.),
The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 111-124). New York: Sage.
Secord, P. F., Bevan, W. & Katz, B. (1956). The Negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation.
Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 53, 78-83.
Shapiro, P. N. & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
Shea, J. B. & Paull, G. (1996). Capturing expertise in sports. In K. A. Ericsson (Ed.),
The road to excellence (pp. 321-336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shepherd, J. W. (1981). Social factors in face recognition. In G. Davies, H. Ellis, & J. Shepherd (Eds.),
Perceiving and remembering faces (pp. 55-79). London: Academic Press.
Shepherd, J. W. & Deregowski, J. B. (1981). Races and faces: A comparison of the responses of Africans and Europeans to faces of the same and different races.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 125-133.
*Shepherd, J. W., Deregowski, J. B. & Ellis, H. D. (1974). A cross-cultural study of recognition memory for faces.
International Journal of Psychology, 9, 205-211.
Shiffrin, R. M. & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model of recognition memory: REM--retrieving effectively from memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145-166.
*Slone, A. E., Brigham, J. C. & Meissner, C. A. (2000). Social and cognitive factors affecting the own-race bias in Whites.
Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 22, 71-84.
Soukop, V. M., Bimbela, A. & Schiess, M. C. (1999). Recognition memory for faces: Reliability and validity of the Warrington Recognition Memory Test (RMT) in a neurological sample.
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 6, 287-293.
*Sporer, S. L. (1992).
Das Wiedererkennen von Gesichtern [Recognizing faces]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz/Psychologie Verlags Union. [Experiments 15, 16, and 17].
[*34] *Sporer, S. L. (1999, July).
The own-race bias in Germany: Testing the contact hypothesis with Turks and Germans. Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Psychology and Law of the American Psychology-Law Association and the European Psychology-Law Association, Dublin, Ireland.
Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, J. D. & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315-327.
State v. Cromedy, 158 N.J. 112 (1999).
*Swope, T. M. (1994).
Social experience, illusory correlation and facial recognition ability. Unpublished master's thesis, Florida State University.
Tanaka, J. W. & Taylor, M. (1991). Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder?
Cognitive Psychology, 23, 457-482.
*Teitelbaum, S. & Geiselman, R. E. (1997). Observer mood and cross-racial recognition of faces.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 93-106.
United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224 (3rd Cir. 1985).
United States v. Hudson, 884 F.2d 1016 (7th Cir. 1989).
United States v. Norwood, 939 F.Supp. 1132 (D. N.J. 1996).
United States v. Smith, 736 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. 1984).
United States v. Stevens, 736 F.2d 1103 (6th Cir. 1984).
United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
United States v. Watson, 587 F.2d 365 (7th Cir. 1978).
Valentine, T. (1988). Upside-down faces: A review of the effect of inversion upon face recognition.
British Journal of Psychology, 79, 471-491.
Valentine, T. (1991). A unified account of the effects of distinctiveness, inversion and race on face recognition.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 161-204.
Valentine, T. & Bruce, V. (1986). The effect of race, inversion and encoding activity upon face recognition.
Acta Psychologica, 61, 259-273.
Valentine, T. & Bruce, V. (1988). Mental rotation of faces.
Memory & Cognition, 16, 556-566.
*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.
Walk, R. D. (1978). Perceptual learning. In E. C. Carterette, & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),
Handbook of perception: Vol. IX.
Perceptual processing (pp. 257-297). New York: Academic Press.
Warrington, E. K. (1984).
Recognition Memory Test. Windsor, Ontario, Canada: NFER-Nelson.
Wechsler Memory Scale: Technical manual (3rd ed.). (1997). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
*Weimann, G., Fishman, G. & Rattner, A. (1986). Social distance and misidentification.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 27, 217-225.
Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 1546-1557.
Wells, G. L., Wright, E. F. & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Witnesses to crime: Social and cognitive factors governing the validity of people's reports. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.),
Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 53-87). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
*Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E. & Tredoux, C. G. (1999, June).
Own-race bias in South Africa and England. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, Boulder, CO.
Yarmey, A. D. (1979).
The psychology of eyewitness testimony. New York: Free Press.
[*35] Yarmey, A. D. & Jones, H. P. T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. R. Clifford (Eds.),
Evaluating witness evidence: Recent psychological research and new perspectives (pp. 13-40). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Yin, R. K. (1969). Looking at upside-down faces.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 141-145.

Note. Studies contributed one or more of the following estimates: hits; false alarms; discrimination; response criterion; racial attitudes--accuracy; interracial contact--accuracy; attitudes--contact.

Received April 12, 2000

Revision received October 20, 2000

Accepted October 24, 2000



GRAPHIC:
FIGURE 1, "Mirror-effect" pattern demonstrated in hit and false alarm responses to own-race and other-race faces.

FOOTNOTES:
n1 To assess the reliability of coding study moderator variables, two raters generated independent codings for each variable across studies. Rate of agreement across all variables ranged between 93% and 100%.

n2 This conservative criterion ([alpha] = .001) for study moderators was chosen due to the sensitivity of the "fixed effects" analysis. Given the exploratory nature of our investigation, we felt that such a criterion might allow us to examine a range of variables that would likely be replicable under direct empirical investigation. A more conservative, "random effects" model was also run on the sample of studies (see Raudenbush, 1994). Results indicated that White participants yielded a significantly larger own-race bias (ORB) on false alarm responses when compared with both Black, Z = 2.50, p < .05, and other racial/ethnic participants, Z = 2.45, p < .05. White and other participants also exhibited a significant difference in the response criterion estimates, Z = 2.13, p < .05. Additionally, limiting the amount of study time significantly increased estimates of the ORB on aggregate measures of discrimination accuracy, Z = -2.19, p < .05. No other moderator effects were found to be significant, Zs

n3
In his concurring opinion in Telfaire, Chief Judge Bazelon urged that juries be warned of the pitfalls of cross-racial identification. Unfortunately, this caution was not included in the final version of the instructions.


1   2


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

    Main page