Content uploaded by Jessica Marcon Zabecki
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jessica Marcon Zabecki on Mar 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Iowa State University
From the SelectedWorks of Christian A. Meissner, Ph.D.
# $$#&!%+% *! %%
+%$ %)%#$%%%
"&'$ Florida International University
$$# University of Texas at El Paso
#$%$$# University of Texas at El Paso
'% ,!( #$!#$$ #$%$$#
Cross-racial lineup identification: assessing the potential benefits of
context reinstatement
Jacqueline Renee Evans
a
, Jessica L. Marcon
b
and Christian A. Meissner
b
*
a
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA;
b
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, TX 79912, USA
(Received 4 March 2008; final version received 11 March 2008)
The current research examined the potential benefit of contextreinstatement on the
cross-race effect in lineup identification. Participants viewed a series of own- and
other-race faces and subsequently attempted identification of these faces from
target-present and target-absent lineups. The traditional cross-race effect was
found on measures of discrimination accuracy and response bias; however,
discrimination accuracy across own- and other-race faces was shown to interact
with context reinstatement such that only own-race faces benefited from the
provision of contextual information. This finding is discussed in light of encoding-
based theories of the cross-race effect, and with regard to the theoretical and
practical limitations of mitigating the phenomenon at the time of identification.
Keywords: eyewitness identification; cross-racial identification; lineup
identification; context reinstatement; memory
Introduction
A consistent body of psychological research has demonstrated that memory for own-
race faces is superior to memory for faces of another, less familiar race (Malpass &
Kravitz, 1969; Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Known as the cross-race effect (CRE), or
own-race bias, in facial recognition, a variety of social and cognitive theories have
been proposed to account for the phenomenon (see Sporer, 2001). One popular
account of the CRE suggests that differential experience (or interracial contact)
facilitates an individual’s ability to distinguish and represent own-race faces in
memory, but leaves other-race faces more likely to be confused due to a failure in
selecting diagnostic features at encoding (Brigham & Malpass, 1985; Chiroro &
Valentine, 1995; Goldstein & Chance, 1985; Wright, Boyd, & Tredoux, 2003). Using
a dual-process memory approach (see Yonelinas, 2002), Meissner, Brigham, and
Butz (2005) recently suggested that this differential encoding effect may be captured
by participants’ ability to ‘recollect’ details (e.g. episodic or source information, or
facial characteristics attended to, etc.) from the encoding experience. This ability to
discriminate faces in memory based upon qualitative aspects of encoding appears
reliable when recognizing own-race faces, whereas participants appear unable to
effectively encode such qualitative information and rely upon it when recognizing
other-race faces.
*Corresponding author. Email: cmeissner@utep.edu
ISSN 1068-316X print/ISSN 1477-2744
#2009 Taylor & Franci s
DOI: 10.1080/10683160802047030
http://www.informaworld.com
Psychology, Crime & Law
Vol. 15, No. 1, January 2009, 1928
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
In their meta-analysis of the CRE, Meissner and Brigham (2001) noted that less
than 10% of the studies included in their review had examined the phenomenon
within a lineup identification paradigm. Given the potential contribution of the CRE
to the vast number of cases involving wrongful conviction based upon misidentifica-
tion (see Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2003), this void in the literature appears
surprising. Furthermore, while studies that have examined the CRE using an
eyewitness lineup paradigm have consistently observed the phenomenon across a
range of racial/ethnic groups (cf. Brigham, Maass, Snyder, & Spaulding, 1982; Platz
& Hosch, 1988), these studies have generally only employed target-present lineups. In
fact, the CRE is often observed in false alarm responses to non-target faces, and the
contributions of both correct identifications (hits) and false alarm responses are
important to estimate when distinguishing between participants’ability to discrimi-
nate new vs old faces (discrimination accuracy) and their tendency to respond either
liberally or conservatively to faces that are presented (i.e., response criterion; see
Slone, Brigham, & Meissner, 2000; Sporer, 2001).
Recent studies (e.g. Jackiw, Arbuthnott, Pfeifer, Marcon, & Meissner, 2008;
Pezdek & Blandon-Gitlin, 2005) have attempted to supplement the literature on the
CRE by addressing this generally neglected aspect of the phenomenon. One such
paradigm, employed by Jackiw and colleagues, involves the presentation of multiple
target faces (similar to standard recognition paradigms in the face memory
literature), but subsequently presents both target-present and target-absent lineups
to participants, thereby allowing for the estimation of signal detection measures
across conditions (see Meissner, Tredoux, Parker, & MacLin, 2005). Jackiw and
colleagues observed a traditional CRE across estimates of discrimination accuracy,
and further found that this effect was produced as a function of increased false alarm
responses to other-race faces in target-absent lineups. Given the profound influence
of the CRE in facial recognition and its potential contribution to instances of
wrongful conviction, it would appear important to further document the nature of
the effect in target-present and target-absent lineups and to examine factors that
might potentially moderate the phenomenon at the time of identification.
One factor that may improve facial identification in general, and help to
minimize the impact of the CRE in particular, involves the reinstatement of context
at the time of test. It has been well established in the psychological literature that
changes in context can have detrimental effects on recognizing and recalling verbal
material (Godden & Baddeley, 1975; Thomson, 1972; Tulving & Thomson, 1971).
Within the area of facial identification, benefits of context reinstatement have been
found across several studies using different variations of context reinstatement (e.g.
Bower & Karlin, 1974; Davies & Milne, 1982; Krafka & Penrod, 1985; Watkins, Ho
& Tulving, 1976). Watkins and colleagues demonstrated the beneficial effects of
context reinstatement when the relevant context was another face that was paired
with the target face, as well as when the context was a phrase that was presented
during the encoding phase. Their results showed that context reinstatement led to
greater facial recognition accuracy than when participants attempted recognition
absent the descriptive information. Using a slightly different paradigm, Davies and
Milne (1982) examined context effects by varying both the background of target
photographs and the pose/expression of the person photographed. The researchers
found that both manipulations had significant effects on hits and false alarms such
20 J.R. Evans et al.
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
that changes in pose or context decreased discrimination accuracy (i.e. hits decreased
while false alarms increased).
While the studies discussed above were important steps toward understanding the
effects of context on memory for faces, they were each laboratory-based experiments
with limited ecological validity. When studies employing more realistic paradigms
are considered a benefit of context reinstatement can still be found, although the
effect may be smaller (see Shapiro & Penrod, 1986). One of these more ecologically
valid studies was conducted by Malpass and Devine (1981). The authors employed a
staged crime paradigm and exposed half of their participants to guided memory
instructions (which included components of context reinstatement) prior to the
identification phase. Consistent with their predictions, Malpass and Devine found
that this technique improved recognition accuracy. Another study was conducted by
Krafka and Penrod (1985). In this study a target individual entered a store, paid with
a traveler’s check, engaged in small talk with the clerk, and then exited the store. A
confederate later entered posing as a law intern and asked the clerk to identify the
target from either a target-present or target-absent photo lineup. Half of the clerks
had context reinstated by being shown the non-photo ID card that the target had
presented, and being asked to recall what the target had talked about, done, and
looked like. The authors observed a marginal effect of context reinstatement on
accuracy, suggesting that the effects of context reinstatement may vary depending on
the situation. This was confirmed in a later study by Cutler, Penrod, and Martens
(1987).
Summarizing many of the various results regarding context reinstatement and
facial recognition, Shapiro and Penrod (1986) reported in their meta-analysis that
studies examining context reinstatement have produced impressive benefits by
significantly increasing correct identification (hit) rates (d1.91, k23); however,
context reinstatement has also been shown to significantly increase false identifica-
tion rates (d0.44, k18). It should be noted that increased hit rates due to
reinstatement of context have not been found universally. For example, several
studies examining the cognitive interview (CI; Fisher & Geiselman, 1992), which
makes use of context reinstatement, have failed to find an improvement in
identification accuracy (e.g. Fisher, Quigley, Brock, Chin, & Cutler, 1990; see Fisher
& Schreiber, 2007).
Given the generally positive effects of context reinstatement on improving face
recognition accuracy, the current study sought to examine its potential for mitigating
the CRE. One potential benefit of context reinstatement may be to improve the
recognition of both own- and other-race faces, thereby providing a potential tool
that could be used by law enforcement to reduce the impact of the CRE on
identification. However, a theoretical perspective discussed previously, in which the
CRE is a result of differential encoding processes (Meissner, Brigham, & Butz, 2005),
actually suggests that only own-race faces may benefit from context reinstatement
manipulations. In particular, the benefits of context reinstatement require that more
qualitative information from the encoding episode be available at the time of
retrieval for cueing to produce significant improvements in recognition. Given that
the ‘recollection’of contextually rich information has been shown to be superior for
own-race faces, such a perspective would predict an interaction between context
reinstatement and the CRE on identification accuracy. The current study sought to
assess these predictions using a lineup recognition paradigm (Jackiw et al., 2008;
Psychology, Crime & Law 21
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
Meissner, Tredoux et al., 2005) in which participants encoded both own- and other-
race faces and were later asked to identify these faces from a sequence of target-
present and target-absent lineups. Context reinstatement was manipulated across
participants by providing semantic information at study and, in some cases,
reinstating that information at the time of identification.
Method
Participants
Eighty-two Hispanic students (68% female) were recruited via the participant pool at
a large public university in Florida. All participants were awarded an hour of
research credit for their time and the majority were taking an introductory
psychology course. The mean age of the sample was 19 years.
Materials
Six Hispanic and six AfricanAmerican male target faces were selected for the
study and test phases. Faces presented at study involved targets wearing their
everyday clothing in a smiling pose. A target-present and target-absent six-person
lineup was created for each target face using the two-part procedure suggested by
Koehnken, Malpass, and Wogalter (1996). In this manner, lineup members were
chosen for their match to the perpetrator’s description and then chosen for their
similarity to one another. No designated ‘innocent suspect’was chosen for the
target-absent lineups, such that analyses focused upon the aggregate rate of false
alarm responses to foils in such arrays (cf. Jackiw et al., 2008; Meissner, Tredoux
et al., 2005). No foils (non-target faces) were repeated across lineups, including
the target-absent and target-present lineups for a given face. Faces presented at
test involved all individuals wearing a common burgundy sweatshirt in a non-
smiling pose. All lineups were assessed for fairness using a mock witness
technique (Doob & Kirshenbaum, 1973) and met adequate requirements for
lineup size and bias. Lineup size was assessed using Tredoux’sE, which estimates
the number of plausible lineup foils (Tredoux, 1998). Bias was assessed using the
proportions technique, which compares the proportion of time the suspect is
selected from the lineup to the proportion expected by chance alone (0.17 in a
six-person lineup; Brigham, Meissner, & Wasserman, 1999). For target-present
lineups the average proportion of mock witnesses selecting the target was 0.18
(range: 0.140.27) and the average Tredoux’sEwas 4.63 (range: 3.625.52). For
target-absent lineups the average Tredoux’sEwas 4.15 (range: 3.255.68).
Design and procedure
A 3 (Context Reinstatement: no information vs. name only vs. all information)2
(own-race vs. other-race target faces) mixed factorial design was employed. Context
reinstatement was manipulated between-participants. All participants viewed the
target faces and associated semantic information at encoding; however, context
reinstatement was manipulated at test such that participants either received no
information, the name of the target face, or all semantic information presented with
22 J.R. Evans et al.
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
the target face at study. The CRE was manipulated within-participant such that all
participants responded to both Hispanic and AfricanAmerican target faces and
lineups. Study and test phases were blocked by race of face, with the order of
presentation counterbalanced across participants and controlled for in the sub-
sequent analyses.
All materials, instructions, and responses were presented and recorded on
personal computers via a modified version of the PC_Eyewitness program (MacLin,
Meissner, & Zimmerman, 2005). During each study phase, participants were
explicitly instructed to pay attention to and remember the faces they were about
to see, in addition to the information provided above those faces. As such,
participants were performing an intentional memory task. All participants were
then presented with either six Hispanic faces or six AfricanAmerican faces,
depending upon block sequencing. Contextual information was provided along
with each face. This information included a name, undergraduate major, and hobby
(e.g. ‘This is Alex. Major is History. Hobby is Basketball.’), the content of which was
randomly generated for each target. Faces and contextual information were each
presented for 3.5 seconds. The presentation order of each target and his correspond-
ing contextual information was randomized across participants, with a 1 second
inter-stimulus interval (ISI) between presentations. Following the study phase,
participants completed a 5-minute distracter task that involved solving basic
arithmetic problems.
Upon completing the distracter task, participants were instructed that they
would be viewing a series of lineups and that for each lineup they should indicate if
they recognized one of the faces as having been studied during the prior phase.
Participants were also cautioned that for each lineup a face from the study phase
might or might not be present. If participants recognized a face they were told to
select that face from the lineup. If they failed to recognize a face from the lineup, they
were told to select the ‘not present’option. Participants were shown a sequence of 12
simultaneous six-person lineups, including one target-present and one target-absent
lineup for each target face they had viewed previously. The order of the presentation
of the lineups was counterbalanced across participants and the order of the faces
within the lineups was randomly determined for each participant by the computer
program. Immediately prior to presenting the lineup, context reinstatement was
manipulated by providing either no information, only the name, or all of the
information displayed at encoding (i.e. name, major and hobby) for the target face
across both target-present and target-absent lineups. After completing the two study-
test blocks across African-American and Hispanic faces, participants were asked to
provide demographic information and were debriefed.
Results
Participants’hit responses from target-present lineups and false alarm responses
from target-absent lineups (aggregated across foils) were used to compute signal
detection measures of discrimination accuracy (A?) and response criterion (Bƒ). Two
2 (Race of Face: Hispanic vs African-American)3 (Context Reinstatement: No
Information vs. Name Only vs. All Information) mixed ANCOVAs were conducted
across these two measures of performance. The order of presentation for African
American vs. Hispanic faces was entered as a covariate in each analysis.
Psychology, Crime & Law 23
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
Discrimination accuracy
Consistent with the prior literature (Meissner & Brigham, 2001), a significant main
effect of Race of Face was observed on participants’discrimination accuracy,
F(1,78)10.45, pB0.01, h
2
0.12. As expected, participants demonstrated better
discrimination of own-race faces (M0.66, SD 0.18) when compared with other-
race faces (M0.60, SD0.21). This CRE, however, was qualified by a significant
Race of FaceContext Reinstatement interaction, F(2,79)3.37, pB0.05, h
2
0.08. Two one-way ANOVAs were conducted to further assess the influence of
context reinstatement on own- vs. other-race faces. Consistent with an encoding-
based account of the CRE (Meissner, Brigham, & Butz, 2005), a significant effect of
context reinstatement was observed for own-race faces, F(2,78) .11, pB0.05, h
2
0.07, but not for other-race faces, F(2,78) 0.10, NS, h
2
0.00. As displayed in
Figure 1, participants’performance on own-race faces significantly improved as a
result of context reinstatement, while the provision of such information at the time of
identification failed to improve performance on other-race faces. Own- vs. other-race
discrimination accuracy differed significantly for both the Name Only, F(1,24)
4.26, p0.05, h
2
0.15 (Ms0.65 vs 0.60, SDs0.18 vs 0.20, respectively), and the
All Information, F(1,25)5.41, pB0.05, h
2
0.18 (Ms0.73 vs 0.62, SDs0.19 vs
0.22, respectively), conditions; however, no significant CRE was observed in the No
Information condition, F(1,27)1.35, NS, h
2
0.04 (Ms0.59 vs 0.62, SDs0.22
vs. 0.25, respectively).There was no significant main effect of Context Reinstatement
on discrimination accuracy, F(2,78)0.83, NS, h
2
0.02.
Response criterion
A significant main effect of Race of Face was also observed on participants’response
criterion, F(1,78) 15.90, pB0.001, h
2
0.17. Consistent with the prior literature
(Meissner & Brigham, 2001), participants exhibited a more conservative response
criterion when responding to own-race faces (M0.50, SD0.57) than to other-
race faces (M0.16, SD0.61). Own- vs. other-race criterion differences were
own-race faces
discrimination accuracy (A')
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0 no information
name only
all information
other-race faces
Figure 1. Interaction between context reinstatement and race of face on discrimination
accuracy for target-present and target-absent lineups. From the left, bars indicate No
Information, Name Only, All Information.
24 J.R. Evans et al.
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
observed in the No Information, F(1,27)5.54, pB0.05, h
2
0.17 (Ms0.46 vs.
0.09, SDs0.53 vs. 0.59, respectively), and All Information, F(1,25)7.80, pB0.01,
h
2
0.24 (Ms0.50 vs. 0.15, SDs 0.53 vs. 0.52, respectively), conditions, but failed
to reach a conventional level of significance in the Name Only condition, F(1,24)
3.08, p0.09, h
2
0.11 (Ms0.53 vs. 0.23, SDs 0.58 vs. 0.62, respectively).
Neither the main effect of Context Reinstatement, F(2,78)0.31, NS, h
2
0.01, nor
the Race of FaceContext Reinstatement interaction, F(2,78)0.12, NS, h
2
0.00,
significantly influenced response criterion.
Discussion
Decades of research have documented the regularity of the CRE, particularly with
regard to the potential danger of mistaken eyewitness identification (see Meissner &
Brigham, 2001; Sporer, 2001). Yet surprisingly few studies have examined the CRE
within the context of a lineup identification task including both target-present and
target-absent lineups. The current study sought to remedy this lapse in the research
literature and to further assess the extent to which the CRE might be mitigated by
reinstating context at the time of identification. Given the large positive effects of
context reinstatement on face identification (cf. Shapiro & Penrod, 1986), one
reasonable hypothesis was that such a manipulation could improve performance on
both own- and other-race faces. However, recent studies have suggested that the
CRE may result from superior qualitative encoding (e.g. episodic or source
information, or facial characteristics attended to, etc.) of own-race faces (Meissner,
Brigham, & Butz, 2005) a finding that would predict an interaction such that only
own-race faces would benefit from the provision of contextual information at the
time of identification. Consistent with an encoding-based effect, the current study
demonstrated that while context reinstatement improved own-race face identifica-
tions, it failed to influence the identification of other-race faces (see Figure 1).
To explore the CRE in the current study we employed a laboratory-based, lineup
recognition paradigm (Meissner, Tredoux et al., 2005) in which participants were
presented with multiple faces at encoding and were tested using a sequence of both
target-present and target-absent lineups. While this paradigm provides for greater
experimental control, including the ability to generalize across faces within each race
and the assessment of the CRE using a within-participant design, we recognize that
the paradigm is limited in its ecological validity for representing the more typical
eyewitness identification experience (namely, a single target ‘perpetrator’in the
context of an event sequence followed by a single lineup identification array). While
we believe that the current results will generalize to the more typical eyewitness
identification paradigm used by other researchers (e.g. Platz & Hosch, 1988), further
exploration of the CRE using both the current laboratory paradigm and the more
applied eyewitness paradigm appears to be warranted.
One intriguing finding from the present study was the absence of the traditional
CRE in our control condition, where no context information was presented at test.
One possibility is that the timing we used in presenting the face and semantic
information may have distracted participants from encoding a sufficient level
of facial information and thereby suppressed performance on both own- and
other-race faces. The reinstatement of semantic information at test did improve
identification for own-race faces, but the poor encoding skill associated with memory
Psychology, Crime & Law 25
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
for other-race faces appears to have prevented the binding of facial and semantic
information from which participants might have otherwise benefited. It is important
to note that other studies from our laboratory (Jackiw et al., 2008) have
demonstrated the traditional CRE when using a lineup recognition paradigm, but
in the absence of other semantic information being provided at encoding. As a result,
we believe that our No Information condition was inconsistent with more traditional
attempts to asses the CRE. Further research regarding the influence of peripheral
encoding information on memory for own- vs. other-race faces would prove useful.
Due to limitations in our participant pool, the current study employed only
Hispanic participants. As a result, we were unable to test for a complete crossover
CRE. While we believe that the current findings will be replicated in other samples,
this represents an important venture for future research. Our manipulation of
contextual cues based upon semantic information may also represent a limitation to
the generalizability of our results. While such cues may not be representative of those
present in a true eyewitness event, our intent was to capture in a conceptual way the
provision of peripheral information that might be provided as cues for the retrieval
of a memory. In fact, previous studies have found context reinstatement effects
regardless of the way in which context was operationalized (e.g. Bower and Karlin
(1974) paired faces to provide context, while Davies and Milne (1982) varied the
background of photographs), making it unlikely that our results are specific to using
semantic information. Nevertheless, research has suggested that context reinstate-
ment effects in more applied settings tend to produce smaller effects (see Shapiro &
Penrod, 1986). As a result, it would be prudent to conduct further research
examining the influence of context reinstatement on the CRE using a more
ecological approach.
Taken together, the current study represented an important step in attempting to
identify factors that might ameliorate the phenomenon at the time of identification.
However, if the CRE is truly an encoding-based phenomenon, then few manipula-
tions during the lineup administration phase (e.g. lineup instructions, lineup method,
etc.) are likely to improve discrimination accuracy for other-race faces. We believe
this to be an important theoretical and practical proposition for further testing.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation to the third author
(CAM).
References
Bower, G.H., & Karlin, M.B. (1974). Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition
memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology,103, 751757.
Brigham, J.C., & Malpass, R.S. (1985). The role of experience and contact in the recognition
of own- and other-race persons. Journal of Social Issues,41, 139155.
Brigham, J.C., Maass, A., Snyder, L.D., & Spaulding, K. (1982). Accuracy of eyewitness
identification in a field setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,42, 673681.
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, S73S92.
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, 879894.
Cutler, B.L., Penrod, S.D., & Martens, T.K. (1987). Improving the reliability of eyewitness
identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology,72, 629637.
26 J.R. Evans et al.
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
Davies, G., & Milne, A. (1982). Recognizing faces in and out of context. Current Psychological
Research,2, 235246.
Doob, A.N., & Kirshenbaum, H.M. (1973). Bias in police lineups partial remembering.
Journal of Police Science and Administration,1, 287293.
Fisher, R.P., & Geiselman, R.E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative
interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Fisher, R.P. Quigley, K.L. Brock, P. Chin, D. & Cutler, B.L. (1990). The effectiveness of the
cognitive interview in description and identification tasks. Paper presented at the American
PsychologyLaw Society, Williamsburg, VA.
Fisher, R.P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interviewing protocols to improve eyewitness memory. In
M. Toglia, R. Lindsay, D. Ross, & J. Reed (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology:
Volume One. Memory for events (pp. 5380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Godden, D.R., & Baddeley, A.D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural
environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology,66, 325331.
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, 211214.
Jackiw, L.B., Arbuthnott, K.D., Pfeifer, J.E., Marcon, J.L., & Meissner, C.A. (2008).
Examining the cross-race effect in lineup identification using Caucasian and First Nation
samples. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,40,5257.
Koehnken, G., Malpass, R.S., & Wogalter, M.S. (1996). Forensic applications of line-up
research. In S.L. Sporer, R.S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological Issues in
Eyewitness Identification (pp. 205231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness
identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49,5869.
MacLin, O.H., Meissner, C.A., & Zimmerman, L.A. (2005). PC_Eyewitness: A computerized
framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness
psychology. Behavior Research Methods,37, 324333.
Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. (1981). Guided memory in eyewitness identification. Journal of
Applied Psychology,66, 343350.
Malpass, R.S., & Kravitz, J. (1969). Recognition for faces of own and other race. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,13, 330334.
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,7,335.
Meissner, C.A., Brigham, J.C., & Butz, D.A. (2005). Memory for own- and other-race faces: A
dual-process approach. Applied Cognitive Psychology,19, 545567.
Meissner, C.A., Tredoux, C.G., Parker, J.F., & MacLin, O.H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in
simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis.
Memory and Cognition,33, 783792.
Pezdek, K., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2005). When is an intervening line-up most likely to affect
eyewitness identification accuracy? Legal and Criminological Psychology,10, 247263.
Platz, S.J., & Hosch, H.M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,18, 972984.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2003). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how
to make it right. New York: Signet.
Shapiro, P.N., & Penrod, S.D. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin,100, 139156.
Slone, A.E., Brigham, J.C., & Meissner, C.A. (2000). Social and cognitive factors affecting the
own-race bias in Whites. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,22,7184.
Sporer, S.L. (2001). The cross-race effect: Beyond recognition of faces in the laboratory.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,7, 170200.
Thomson, D.M. (1972). Context effects in recognition memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behavior,11, 497511.
Tredoux, C.G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human
Behavior,22, 217237.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D.M. (1971). Retrieval processes in recognition memory: Effects of
associative context. Journal of Experimental Psychology,87, 116124.
Psychology, Crime & Law 27
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009
Watkins, M.J., Ho, E., & Tulving, E. (1976). Context effects in recognition memory for faces.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,15, 505517.
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.
Yonelinas, A.P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of
research. Journal of Memory and Language,46, 441517.
28 J.R. Evans et al.
Downloaded By: [Meissner, Christian] At: 03:15 24 January 2009