No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Eyewitness Identification Reform Data, Theory, and Due Process
Abstract
Some commentators view my analyses (Clark, 2012, this issue) as an important step forward in assessing the costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform. Others suggest that the trade-off between correct identifications lost and false identifications avoided is well-known; that the expected utility model is misspecified; and that the loss of correct identifications due to the use of reformed eyewitness identification procedures is irrelevant to policy decisions, as those correct identifications are the illegitimate product of suggestion and lucky guesses. Contrary to these criticisms, the loss of correct identifications has not been adequately considered in theoretical or policy matters, criticisms regarding the various utilities do not substantively change the nature of the trade-off, and the dismissal of lost correct identifications is based not on data but on an outdated theory of recognition memory.
© The Author(s) 2012.
... Under some circumstances, partial ROC curves may enable researchers to discern whether one procedure is objectively superior to another at incriminating guilty suspects (i.e., if one procedure yields a consistently higher guilty suspect ID rate across the whole curve and terminates at a higher overall guilty suspect ID rate; for a discussion, see Lampinen et al., 2019). In empirical eyewitness research, however, partial ROC curves often show that the procedure with the higher correct suspect ID rate is associated with a higher incorrect suspect ID rate, producing a "trade-off" (Clark, 2012;Lampinen et al., 2019); that is, one procedure is not objectively superior to another at incriminating guilty suspects. Further, this form of analysis neglects ID procedures' capacity to exculpate innocent suspects. ...
... Because suggested lineup reforms (e.g., cautionary instructions) often reduce both incorrect IDs of innocent suspects and correct IDs of guilty suspects (see Clark, 2012), researchers have focused on the relative values, or utilities, of mistaken IDs incurred and correct IDs lost as a function of varying lineup procedures. Naturally, it is desirable to reduce incorrect IDs, and it is undesirable to reduce correct IDs; however, most eyewitness researchers operate with the assumption that a mistaken ID of an innocent suspect is worse than a mistaken rejection of a guilty suspect, in part because the former error necessarily entails the latter error as well (Clark et al., 2018;Steblay et al., 2011). ...
... Eyewitness scientists have turned explicitly to the issue of utilities somewhat recently, and attempts to quantify the practical benefits of lineup reforms have necessarily included assumptions regarding the relative values of incorrect and correct IDs/non-IDs (Clark, 2012;Lampinen et al., 2019;Yang et al., 2019). For example, a recent study examined, among other things, how different cost ratios (e.g., the Blackstone principle of 10:1) affected the overall utility of various eyewitness lineup procedures based on previous data (Yang et al., 2019). ...
Objective: Recent attempts to model the relative performances of eyewitness lineup procedures necessarily include theoretical assumptions about the various costs/benefits, or utilities, of different identification outcomes. We collected data to incorporate empirically derived utilities into such modeling as well as data on various stakeholders’ views of lineup procedures as tertiary objectives. Hypotheses: This research was exploratory; therefore, we did not have a priori hypotheses. Method: We surveyed judges’ (n = 70), prosecutors’ (n = 28), police officers’ (n = 82), and laypersons’ (n = 191) opinions about eyewitness identification procedures and the utilities of outcomes of eyewitness identification procedures. We incorporated the utility judgments into models comparing the desirability of various lineup reforms and compared policy preferences between our samples. Results: All samples frequently mentioned estimator and system variables in open-ended evaluations of lineup procedures, but legal samples mentioned system variables more often than did laypersons. Reflector variables (e.g., confidence) were mentioned less often across the board, as was the scientific basis/standardization of identification policy (especially among laypersons). Utility judgments of various identification outcomes indicated that judges adopt values more closely aligned with normative legal ethics (i.e., the Blackstone ratio), whereas other stakeholders (especially laypersons) depart significantly from those standards. Utility models indicated general agreement among samples in lineup procedure preferences, which varied as a function of culprit-presence base rates. Conclusion: Although legal stakeholders vary in how they value eyewitness identification outcomes, their values imply relatively consistent policy preferences that sometimes depart from scientific recommendations. Nonetheless, all samples expressed support for using scientific research to inform legal policy regarding eyewitness evidence.
... This problem likely extends beyond simultaneous and sequential lineups. 13 We did not consider the recommendation that lineups be conducted by a blind lineup administrator, in part because there is only one published study with guilty-and innocent-suspect lineups (Greathouse & Kovera, 2009) and several unpublished studies (see Clark, 2012b). ...
... The public policy implications of the no-cost pattern-and its disappearance-have been discussed at length elsewhere (see Clark, 2012aClark, , 2012bLaudan, 2012;Newman & Loftus, 2012;Wells et al., 2011). We will not repeat those arguments and counterarguments here. ...
Scientists in many disciplines have begun to raise questions about the evolution of research findings over time (Ioannidis in Epidemiology, 19, 640-648, 2008; Jennions & Møller in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences, 269, 43-48, 2002; Mullen, Muellerleile, & Bryan in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1450-1462, 2001; Schooler in Nature, 470, 437, 2011), since many phenomena exhibit decline effects-reductions in the magnitudes of effect sizes as empirical evidence accumulates. The present article examines empirical and theoretical evolution in eyewitness identification research. For decades, the field has held that there are identification procedures that, if implemented by law enforcement, would increase eyewitness accuracy, either by reducing false identifications, with little or no change in correct identifications, or by increasing correct identifications, with little or no change in false identifications. Despite the durability of this no-cost view, it is unambiguously contradicted by data (Clark in Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238-259, 2012a; Clark & Godfrey in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 22-42, 2009; Clark, Moreland, & Rush, 2013; Palmer & Brewer in Law and Human Behavior, 36, 247-255, 2012), raising questions as to how the no-cost view became well-accepted and endured for so long. Our analyses suggest that (1) seminal studies produced, or were interpreted as having produced, the no-cost pattern of results; (2) a compelling theory was developed that appeared to account for the no-cost pattern; (3) empirical results changed over the years, and subsequent studies did not reliably replicate the no-cost pattern; and (4) the no-cost view survived despite the accumulation of contradictory empirical evidence. Theories of memory that were ruled out by early data now appear to be supported by data, and the theory developed to account for early data now appears to be incorrect.
... This problem likely extends beyond simultaneous and sequential lineups. 13 We did not consider the recommendation that lineups be conducted by a blind lineup administrator, in part because there is only one published study with guilty-and innocent-suspect lineups (Greathouse & Kovera, 2009) and several unpublished studies (see Clark, 2012b). ...
... The public policy implications of the no-cost pattern-and its disappearance-have been discussed at length elsewhere (see Clark, 2012aClark, , 2012bLaudan, 2012;Newman & Loftus, 2012;Wells et al., 2011). We will not repeat those arguments and counterarguments here. ...
The U.S. Supreme Court wrote in 1967, 'The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification.' (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218). Forty-five years later these 'vagaries' are perhaps even more well-known. Archival analyses have led to a consensus that mistaken eyewitness identification is the primary cause of wrongful convictions in the U.S. (Garrett, 2011; Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery, & Patil, 2005; Gross & Shaffer, 2012). Experimental research on eyewitness identification has led to the development of new procedures designed to increase the accuracy of eyewitness identification evidence and reduce the risk of false identification errors that can send innocent people to prison. Many state governments and local law enforcement jurisdictions have already implemented the new procedures, and others are contemplating their adoption. As the reform movement has gained momentum, however, the empirical foundation for the recommended procedures has eroded. The procedural changes produce a trade-off between false identifications avoided and correct identifications lost. In some cases the reforms may not reduce eyewitness errors, but only redistribute them, such that the changes in accuracy are very small or non-existent.
... Some scholars have raised objections about instituting double-blind administration as policy. For example, some scholars have criticized the double-blind recommendation for conducting lineups, arguing that there are too few published studies on the topic (Clark, 2012b;Clark, Moreland, & Gronlund, 2014). Double-blind methods-using placebos to control both researcher and participant expectations-have been the gold standard in medical research for decades. ...
Lineups and photo arrays are often presented to witnesses by police officers who know which lineup member is the suspect (single-blind lineup administration) rather than by officers who do not know (double-blind administration). Administrators who are not blind to which lineup member is the suspect are more likely than blind administrators to emit behavioral cues that steer witnesses toward choosing the suspect and away from choosing fillers (i.e., a lineup member who is not the suspect). Moreover, nonblind administrators may provide confirmatory feedback to witnesses who identify the suspect, increasing their confidence in the accuracy of their identification and weakening the correlation between witness confidence and accuracy. Nonblind administrators are also more likely to interpret witnesses’ tentative statements about a suspect than about a filler as a positive identification. Because of these findings that single-blind administration biases identifications against suspects, even when they are innocent, evidence-based recommendations for best practices in the collection of eyewitness-identification evidence call for the use of double-blind lineup-administration procedures.
... In addition to concerns about limited resources making it difficult to implement double-blind procedures, some have objected to their adoption because of the loss of correct identifications associated with double-blind administration (Clark, 2012a(Clark, , 2012b. Although it is true that double-blind procedures can reduce both correct and mistaken identifications, they do so by eliminating the opportunity for administrators to cue the witness to which lineup member is the suspect. ...
Objective: The Executive Committee of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association) appointed a subcommittee to update the influential 1998 scientific review paper on guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures. Method: This was a collaborative effort by six senior eyewitness researchers, who all participated in the writing process. Feedback from members of AP-LS and the legal communities was solicited over an 18-month period. Results: The results yielded nine recommendations for planning, designing, and conducting eyewitness identification procedures. Four of the recommendations were from the 1998 article and concerned the selection of lineup fillers, prelineup instructions to witnesses, the use of double-blind procedures, and collection of a confidence statement. The additional five recommendations concern the need for law enforcement to conduct a prelineup interview of the witness, the need for evidence-based suspicion before conducting an identification procedure, video-recording of the entire procedure, avoiding repeated identification attempts with the same witness and same suspect, and avoiding the use of showups when possible and improving how showups are conducted when they are necessary. Conclusions: The reliability and integrity of eyewitness identification evidence is highly dependent on the procedures used by law enforcement for collecting and preserving the eyewitness evidence. These nine recommendations can advance the reliability and integrity of the evidence. Public Significance Statement Mistaken eyewitness identification is a primary contributor to criminal convictions of the innocent. Pristine procedures for collecting and documenting eyewitness identification evidence can help prevent these mistakes. This scientific review paper makes nine system variable recommendations concerning eyewitness identification procedures that should be implemented by crime investigators in eyewitness identification cases.
... However, the identification of fillers (e.g., lineup members who are not suspects being placed in the same lineup as the suspect) occurred at a rate of 18.1% for simultaneous lineups and 12.2% for sequential lineups, thus resulting in a statistically significant difference. Indeed, research has substantiated the effectiveness of the sequential lineup method (e.g., Klobuchar, Steblay, & Caligiuri, 2006;Steblay, Dietrich, Ryan, Raczynski, & James, 2011;Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001), but the matter of what lineup procedure is more valid and reliable is still ongoing (e.g., Clark, 2012;Charman & Quiroz, 2016;Haw & Fisher, 2004;Malpass, 2006;Wells, Steblay, & Dysart, 2015). ...
The critical race theory has been predictive of how minority youth are treated in the juvenile and criminal justice systems in the United States. However, the theory has not been applied in explaining the existence of wrongful convictions among juveniles. Using secondary data derived from the National Exoneration Registry, the purpose of this study is to identify specific factors (e.g., DNA evidence, etc.) related to the wrongful convictions of Black youth who have been exonerated. Compared to other racial categories, the results reveal that Black youth are more likely to experience wrongful convictions as a result of false confessions, faulty eyewitness identification, perjury, and official misconduct. Limitations, policy implications, and areas of further investigation are offered.
... In addition to concerns about limited resources making it difficult to implement double-blind procedures, some have objected to their adoption because of the loss of correct identifications associated with double-blind administration (Clark, 2012a(Clark, , 2012b. Although it is true that double-blind procedures can reduce both correct and mistaken identifications, they do so by eliminating the opportunity for administrators to cue the witness to which lineup member is the suspect. ...
Objective: The Executive Committee of the American Psychology-Law Society (Division 41 of the American Psychological Association) appointed a subcommittee to update the influential 1998 scientific review paper on guidelines for eyewitness identification procedures. Method: This was a collaborative effort by six senior eyewitness researchers, who all participated in the writing process. Feedback from members of AP-LS and the legal communities was solicited over an 18-month period. Results: The results yielded nine recommendations for planning, designing, and conducting eyewitness identification procedures. Four of the recommendations were from the 1998 article and concerned the selection of lineup fillers, prelineup instructions to witnesses, the use of double-blind procedures, and collection of a confidence statement. The additional five recommendations concern the need for law enforcement to conduct a prelineup interview of the witness, the need for evidence-based suspicion before conducting an identification procedure, video-recording of the entire procedure, avoiding repeated identification attempts with the same witness and same suspect, and avoiding the use of showups when possible and improving how showups are conducted when they are necessary. Conclusions: The reliability and integrity of eyewitness identification evidence is highly dependent on the procedures used by law enforcement for collecting and preserving the eyewitness evidence. These nine recommendations can advance the reliability and integrity of the evidence.
... Unfortunately, this decrease in the rate of false identifications from target-absent lineups is typically accompanied by a decrease in the rate of accurate identifications from target-present lineups (Clark, 2005). This "tradeoff" problem has led some researchers to question the desirability of the lineup instruction reform recommendation as well as other reforms (e.g., Clark, 2012). Others, however, have argued against the supposition that culprit identifications obtained using suggestive procedures such as biased lineup instructions are actually legitimate or "true" accurate identifications (e.g., Wells, Steblay, & Dysart, 2012). ...
Eyewitness memory can be distorted by simple comments received after an identification decision is made. When these comments suggest that the identification decision was correct, they inflate witnesses’ recollections of how confident they were, how good their view was, and other testimony-relevant judgments. This post-identification feedback effect is a robust phenomenon with significant implications for judging the reliability of eyewitness evidence. For example, research showing particularly powerful effects of feedback on witnesses who have made mistaken decisions presents a significant risk to wrongly identified people. In the current chapter, we begin with an overview of 20 years of research on the feedback effect. Next, we analyze how feedback research has factored into two recent state supreme court decisions and a U.S. Supreme Court decision. After reviewing the court decisions, we discuss the potential for feedback research to both strengthen and refine system variable reforms as outlined in the 2017 Department of Justice memorandum on eyewitness identification procedures. Finally, we present future research suggestions including the imperative to study how feedback might emerge in new ways (e.g., through witnesses’ own “investigations” using social media).
... Second, this research adds to the growing body of research that administrator expectancy effects, driven by the effects that administrators' knowledge of the suspect's identity has on their behavior while administering the lineup, result in increased identifications of suspects. Although some have raised concerns about doubleblind procedures because they result in a loss of correct identifications as well as the identification of innocent suspects (Clark, 2012a(Clark, , 2012b, others note that there is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate hits (Wells, Steblay, & Dysart, 2012). The law requires that an eyewitness identification be based on the independent memory of the witness, without contamination by suggestion (Perry v. New Hampshire, 2012). ...
Administrator/witness pairs (N = 313) were randomly assigned to target-absent lineups in a 2 (Suspect/Perpetrator Similarity: High Suspect Similarity vs. Low Suspect Similarity) × 2 (Retention Interval: 30 min vs. 1 week) × 2 (Lineup Presentation: Simultaneous vs. Sequential) × 2 (Administrator Knowledge: Single-Blind vs. Double-Blind) factorial design to test whether suspect similarity and memory strength constrain interpersonal expectancy effects on eyewitness identification accuracy. Administrators who knew which lineup member was the suspect (single-blind) or who administered simultaneous lineups were more likely to emit verbal and nonverbal behaviors that suggested to the witness who the suspect was. Additionally, single-blind administrators exerted more pressure on witnesses to choose the suspect as opposed to fillers. Administrator knowledge interacted with retention interval and lineup presentation to influence mistaken identifications of innocent suspects; witnesses were more likely to mistakenly identify an innocent suspect from single-blind than double-blind lineups when witness retention intervals were long and photographs were presented simultaneously. Contrary to our predictions, suspect/perpetrator similarity did not interact with other manipulated variables to influence identification decisions. Both sequential and double-blind procedures should be used to reduce the use of suggestive behavior during lineup administration.
... Finally, objections to the adoption of double-blind procedures are raised because it results in the loss of correct identifications (Clark, 2012a(Clark, , 2012b. Indeed, Clark (2012a) has argued that psychologists' calls for the evidence-based reform of identification procedures have neglected to acknowledge that in addition to reducing mistaken identifications of innocent suspects, the reforms also reduce correct identification of guilty parties. ...
Many have recommended that lineups be conducted by administrators who do not know which lineup member is the suspect (i.e., a double-blind administration). Single-blind lineup administration, in which the administrator knows which lineup member is the suspect, increases the rate at which witnesses identify suspects, increasing the likelihood that both innocent and guilty suspects are identified. Although the increase in correct identifications of the guilty may appear desirable, in fact, this increase in correct identifications is the result of impermissible suggestion on the part of the administrator. In addition to these effects on witness choices, single-blind administration influences witness confidence through an administrator’s feedback to witnesses about their choices, reducing the correlation between witness confidence and accuracy. Finally, single-blind administration influences police reports of the witness’s identification behavior, with the same witness behavior resulting in different outcomes for suspects depending upon whether the administrator knew which lineup member was the suspect. Administrators who know which lineup member is the suspect in an identification procedure emit behaviors that increase the likelihood that witnesses will choose the suspect, primarily by causing witnesses who would have chosen a filler (known innocent member of the lineup who is not the suspect) to choose the suspect. To avoid impermissible suggestion, photo arrays and lineups should be administered using double-blind procedures.
... Though sequential lineups do come at the cost of some correct identifications, which has led some to question their utility (e.g.,Clark, 2012). ...
Wrongful convictions often flow from a cascade of investigative errors and sometimes deliberate investigative and/or prosecutorial misconduct. This chapter considers several steps in the cascade of errors and misconduct that can lead to wrongful conviction. It begins with the difficulty of the process of investigation and the inevitable infusion of bias into it. The chapter then considers specific errors, such as the targeting of innocent suspects and next considers the nature and operation of confirmation and motivational biases that may infuse the investigation and trial. For procedural issues, the chapter addresses primarily the United States justice system, while directing the reader to some resources addressing similar concerns in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The rest of the chapter focuses on the operation of “tunnel vision” and confirmation biases, as well as motivational biases, in two areas of investigation heavily implicated in wrongful convictions: witness interviews/suspect interrogations and forensics.
... Research that followed was in general agreement (e.g.,Cutler et al., 1987;O'Rourke et al., 1989), which culminated in a meta-analysis in which Steblay (1997) concluded that unbiased instructions decreased choosing from target-absent lineups without decreasing correct IDs from target-present lineups. But more recent research has reached a different conclusion; a recent meta-analysis byClark et al. (2014)showed that the discriminability advantage for unbiased instructions aggregated across 23 studies was nonexistent (d' ¼ À.02). In light of these results, it appears that biased versus unbiased instructions affect only response bias: Eyewitness are more conservative after receiving unbiased instructions. ...
... This language suggests discrete-state mediation because no mnemonic information is assumed to be attached to these non-detected stimuli. In support of this discretestate interpretation, Clark (2012) wrote, regarding the relative judgment strategy, that "…it assumes an all or nothing theory of memory, in which the witness makes a recognition decision based on a true memory, or he or she simply guesses…" (p. 281). ...
Many in the eyewitness identification community believe that sequential lineups are superior to simultaneous lineups because simultaneous lineups encourage inappropriate choosing due to promoting comparisons among choices (a relative judgment strategy), but sequential lineups reduce this propensity by inducing comparisons of lineup members directly to memory rather than to each other (an absolute judgment strategy). Different versions of the relative judgment theory have implicated both discrete-state and continuous mediation of eyewitness decisions. The theory has never been formally specified, but (Yonelinas, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 20:1341–1354, 1994) dual-process models provide one possible specification, thereby allowing us to evaluate how eyewitness decisions are mediated. We utilized a ranking task (Kellen and Klauer, J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 40:1795–1804, 2014) and found evidence for continuous mediation when facial stimuli match from study to test (Experiment 1) and when they mismatch (Experiment 2). This evidence, which is contrary to a version of relative judgment theory that has gained a lot of traction in the legal community, compels reassessment of the role that guessing plays in eyewitness identification. Future research should continue to test formal explanations in order to advance theory, expedite the development of new procedures that can enhance the reliability of eyewitness evidence, and to facilitate the exploration of task factors and emergent strategies that might influence when recognition is continuously or discretely mediated.
... And, in fact, this criticism has merit: there are few empirical studies that demonstrate negative consequences of nonblind lineup administration, and some researchers have thus recently emphasized the need for this type of research (e.g., Clark, 2012). Instead, the recommendation for blind lineups stems from the very robust corpus of research concerning experimenter expectancy effects in general (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1978), which has shown the various ways in which a person's expectations and beliefs about a target can unintentionally lead them to behave in a manner toward that target that reinforces their initial expectations. ...
One of the most recommended procedures proposed by eyewitness experts is the use of double-blind lineups, in which the administrator does not know the identity of the suspect in the lineup. But despite the near universality of this recommendation, there is surprisingly little empirical research to support the claim that nonblind administration inflates false identifications. What little research has been conducted has shown conflicting findings with regard to the conditions under which nonblind administration affects false identifications, as well as its effects on witness confidence. The current study attempts to elucidate this effect. Student-participants (n = 312) were randomly assigned to play the role of either a lineup administrator (who were either told the identity of the suspect in the lineup or not) or a mock crime witness. Following unbiased instructions, administrators presented either a target-present or target-absent sequential lineup to the witness while being surreptitiously videorecorded. Nonblind administration significantly inflated false, but not correct, identifications, and significantly inflated witness confidence in those false identifications. Video recordings indicated that nonblind administrators were significantly more likely than blind administrators to smile (a) while the witness was viewing a photograph of the suspect, and (b) after a suspect identification. Results provide stronger support for the use of blind lineup administration by broadening the conditions under which nonblind administration is shown to inflate false identifications. Possible reconciliations for conflicting findings in the literature are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
... Such analyses should be conducted as more and more states and agencies implement reforms designed to reduce wrongful convictions. The importance of such research to wrongful convictions is highlighted by the recent exchange between Clark (2012aClark ( , 2012b and Wells, Steblay, and Dysart (2012), in which they debate the costs and benefits of eyewitness identification procedure reforms. ...
As wrongful conviction scholarship grows, some scholars have suggested that existing research on miscarriages of justice lacks theoretical grounding and methodological sophistication, arguing that the use of social science theory may help to better understand wrongful convictions. In this article, we suggest that it may be useful to draw upon conceptual frameworks found in traditional criminal justice studies, discuss what such approaches might suggest about miscarriages of justice, and begin to explore the questions or topics they may encourage interested researchers to pursue. Furthermore, through this broad theoretical lens, we can see that criminal justice theory is present, at least implicitly, in some existing innocence literature, and that making such theoretical connections more explicit may help to move the study of wrongful conviction into the mainstream of criminal justice research.
Various formal and informal models of eyewitness memory have been proposed. While serving to guide both the construct and analytical frameworks of research within the field, these models have yet to be critically tested through a process of empirical
falsification. This study addresses this gap by critically testing four hypotheses: the hypotheses that eyewitness memory possesses both (1) random-scale and (2) monotonic likelihood representation; the hypothesis that eyewitness memory data is (3) accurately predicted by high-threshold (HT) models; and the hypothesis that a mathematical model of eyewitness identification provides a (4) good representation of the psychological constructs of eyewitness memory and decision making. After investigating the BlockMarschak inequalities test for random-scale and monotonic-likelihood representation and developing a new critical test for the falsification of the high threshold (HT) models, two experiments were conducted online with a total of 5,056 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Experiment 1 collected k-AFC probabilities for lineup sizes 𝑘 ∈ {2, … ,7}. Experiment 2 collected identification and ranking probabilities from a simultaneous 8-item lineup using a 3 (strong, weak, very weak memory) x 2 (low vs high expectation) x 2 (target-present vs target-absent) between-subject experimental design. Eyewitness identification outcomes were shown to have both random-scale and monotonic likelihood representation, thus allowing for the development of a mathematical model. The 2HT models of eyewitness memory were falsified and superseded by an alternative surviving model—signal detection theory (SDT). Finally, the predictive ability of the unequal-variance (UV) SDT model of simultaneous lineup identification (assuming a MAX decision rule) was confirmed, as was the independence of the model’s parameters and its generalizability across task structures. It was concluded that the UV-SDT class of models provides an evidence-based account of eyewitness identification behavior, supports the measurement of empirical eyewitness identification data, and has facilitated a shift towards the building of stronger scientific evidence.
Thinking About Human Memory provides a novel analytical approach to understanding memory that considers the goals of the memory task, the cues and information available, the opportunity to learn, and interference from irrelevant information (noise). Each of the five chapters describing this approach introduces historical ideas and demonstrates how current thinking both differs from and is derived from them. These chapters also contain analyses of current problems designed to demonstrate the power of the approach. In a subsequent chapter, the authors discuss how memory is controlled by the environment, by others, and by ourselves, and then apply their insights to the problem solving of children, our hominin ancestors, and scrub jays. Finally, the questions of how to define episodic memory and how to investigate phylogenetic and developmental changes in memory are addressed. This book will appeal to memory researchers, including applied researchers, and advanced students.
The aim of this chapter is to describe a major challenge facing contemporary forensic psychology: the reliance on laboratory-based research at the expense of field research. I argue that the reliance on laboratory research has had a profound negative effect on the discipline, retarding our understanding of many psychological phenomena in the forensic field. My focus is on the area of eyewitness memory, although I believe that the arguments presented here are valid for a number of forensic areas of enquiry. This chapter begins with a review of some of the historical roots for the reliance on the laboratory. This is followed by an examination of the consequences of the reliance on the laboratory as the appropriate venue for the study of eyewitness memory. I conclude with some thoughts on how we can meet this challenge; how we can overcome our belief in the ultimate value of the laboratory and develop more appropriate methodologies for the study of eyewitness memory, as well as other aspects of forensic psychology. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York. All rights are reserved.
A fair lineup is needed to maximize the likelihood of correct identification of the criminal and minimize the likelihood of mistaken identification. Fairness depends on distractor plausibility and the lineup method (i.e., simultaneous or sequential).
This paper aims to evaluate the advantages and the limits of distractor plausibility and the presentation of the lineup members, and thus show the best method to ensure correct identification. Our conclusions are based on the major experiments published in the field and on recent debates in the scientific community. In addition to distractor plausibility, our conclusions, which are based on previous work by Malpass (2006), suggest that sequential and simultaneous lineups are complementary rather than opposed. The paper argues that two tools specifically designed for and adapted to particular situations are better than one.
For several decades, social scientists have investigated variables that can influence the accuracy of eyewitnesses’ identifications. This research has been fruitful and led to many recommendations to improve lineup procedures. Arguably, the most crucial reform social scientists advocate is double-blind lineup administration: lineups should be administered by a person who does not know the identity of the suspect. In this paper, we briefly review the classic research on expectancy effects that underlies this procedural recommendation. Then, we discuss the eyewitness research, illustrating three routes by which lineup administrators’ expectations can bias eyewitness identification evidence: effects on eyewitnesses’ identification decisions, effects on eyewitnesses’ identification confidence, and effects on administrator records of the lineup procedure. Finally, we discuss the extent to which double-blind lineup administration has been adopted among police jurisdictions in the United States and address common concerns about implementing a double-blind standard.
Confidence judgments for eyewitness identifications play an integral role in determining guilt during legal proceedings. Past research has shown that confidence in positive identifications is strongly associated with accuracy. Using a standard lineup recognition paradigm, we investigated accuracy using signal detection and ROC analyses, along with the tendency to choose a face with both simultaneous and sequential lineups. We replicated past findings of reduced rates of choosing with sequential as compared to simultaneous lineups, but notably found an accuracy advantage in favor of simultaneous lineups. Moreover, our analysis of the confidence-accuracy relationship revealed two key findings. First, we observed a sequential mistaken identification overconfidence effect: despite an overall reduction in false alarms, confidence for false alarms that did occur was higher with sequential lineups than with simultaneous lineups, with no differences in confidence for correct identifications. This sequential mistaken identification overconfidence effect is an expected byproduct of the use of a more conservative identification criterion with sequential than with simultaneous lineups. Second, we found a steady drop in confidence for mistaken identifications (i.e., foil identifications and false alarms) from the first to the last face in sequential lineups, whereas confidence in and accuracy of correct identifications remained relatively stable. Overall, we observed that sequential lineups are both less accurate and produce higher confidence false identifications than do simultaneous lineups. Given the increasing prominence of sequential lineups in our legal system, our data argue for increased scrutiny and possibly a wholesale reevaluation of this lineup format. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
We have known at least since the publication of On the Witness Stand by Hugo Münster-berg (1908) that eyewitness identification can be faulty. DNA exonerations by the Inno-cence Project 1 have made the entire world aware of this problem. A national registry has recently been released that chronicles 1000 wrongful convictions since 1989. 2 Research-ers have studied 873 of these cases in detail. The website indicates that faulty eyewitness identification was a contributing factor in 43 percent of these cases; it played a role in approximately 80 percent of the sexual assault cases. What can we do about this problem? Given the kind of memory system that we have evolved, one ill-equipped to do the job required of an eyewitness, an argument could be made for the elimination of eye-witness evidence from the criminal justice system. Our memory system did not evolve to retain verbatim representations of events and it does not operate like a video recorder, despite what the general public believes (Simons & Chabris, 2011). Despite these shortcomings of memory, are there proce-dures that the criminal justice system can use to collect and evaluate eyewitness evidence that could enhance its accuracy and thereby partially compensate for the memory system we have? An examination of these proce-dures is the focus of this chapter. Wells (1978) introduced a distinction between two classes of variables that affect eyewitness identification: estimator and system variables. Estimator variables, the topic of Chapter 30 in this volume, are varia-bles that influence the accuracy of eyewitness identification but are not under the control of the criminal justice system (for an earlier review, see Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006). They involve factors such as a race mis-match between the victim and the perpetrator (Meissner & Brigham, 2001), the presence of a distinctive feature on the perpetrator's face (Carlson, 2011), and the presence of a weapon (e.g., Carlson & Carlson, 2012; Loftus, Loftus, & Messo, 1987). Extreme stress adversely affects memory (Morgan et al., 2004), as does poor illumination, greater distance, or shorter exposure (Loftus, 2010). To the extent that these factors pro-duce a weak memory representation, the reconstructive nature of memory becomes even more problematic and the accuracy of an eyewitness even more dubious. System variables involve factors that are under the control of the criminal justice system. These variables come into play after the occurrence and initial encoding of an BK-SAGE-PERFECT-LINDSAY-130601-130025-Ch33.indd 595 BK-SAGE-PERFECT-LINDSAY-130601-130025-Ch33.indd 595
An information-gain approach to the analysis and interpretation of eyewitness identification data is described. The information-gain analysis is grounded in Bayesian statistics, permitting the important role of prior probabilities to be explored. This approach also forces a more complete treatment of the data and reveals important patterns that have escaped previous attention in the eyewitness identification literature. Particularly important is the ability of information-gain analyses to make salient the exonerating value of eyewitness behaviors rather than just their incriminating value. Analyses of sample data sets show how the exonerating value of filler identifications and“not there” responses can actually exceed the incriminating value of identifications of the suspect at certain points in the distribution of prior probabilities.
Clark (2012) highlights an important issue that has received inadequate attention in the eyewitness memory literature: lineup procedures that reduce the false identification rate (a desirable effect) often tend to reduce the correct identification rate as well (an undesirable effect). Determining which procedure is diagnostically superior under those conditions is not easy. Clark (2012) showed that the procedure with the lower false identification rate could be associated with higher overall costs to society once costs and benefits are both taken into consideration. Beyond the issue of cost, we argue that Clark's (2012) observation has far reaching implications for evaluating the diagnostic performance of a lineup procedure. Specifically, the field of eyewitness memory has attempted to differentiate between lineup procedures by using various measures of probative value (such as the diagnosticity ratio). However, contrary to intuition, probative value is not a relevant consideration. Instead, lineup procedures should be compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis, as is routinely done in other applied fields (such as radiology).
© The Author(s) 2012.
[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 85(2) of
Journal of Applied Psychology (see record
2007-17253-001). On page 947, the graphs within Figure 1 were incorrectly labeled. The corrected figure appears in this erratum.] This experiment examined whether a photoarray administrator's knowledge of a suspect's identity increased false identification rates. Fifty participant–administrators (PAs) presented 50 participant–witnesses (PWs) two perpetrator-absent photoarrays following a live staged crime involving two perpetrators. For one photoarray per trial, the experimenter revealed the suspect's identity to the PA. Each PA presented the photoarrays sequentially or simultaneously in the presence or absence of an observer. When the observer was present, PA knowledge of the suspect's identity had a biasing effect in sequential photoarrays only. This pattern did not emerge when the observer was absent. The experimental manipulations did not affect PAs' and PWs' ratings of photoarray fairness or PWs' ratings of pressure to make an identification. These data suggest that only administrators who are blind to the suspect's identity should present sequential photoarrays. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Many states and communities are rewriting their eyewitness identification policies. Some of these jurisdictions are excluding simultaneous lineups altogether, and others are allowing them if double-blind administration of sequential lineups is not possible. The Innocence Project advocates the latter and puts forward blind sequential-lineup administration as the best form of lineup identification. Although sequential lineups are claimed to be superior, no explicit policy analysis has been done. In the present study, the author uses a policy-analysis model based on decision theory to examine the utility of simultaneous and sequential lineups, as well as to examine a range of values placed on identification outcomes and their probabilities. Simultaneous lineups are shown to be superior to sequential lineups under most conditions examined in this analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
A decade ago, a meta-analysis showed that identification of a suspect from a sequential lineup versus a simultaneous lineup was more diagnostic of guilt (Steblay, Dysart, Fulero, & Lindsay, 2001). Since then, controversy and debate regarding sequential superiority has emerged. We report the results of a new meta-analysis involving 72 tests of simultaneous and sequential lineups from 23 different labs involving 13,143 participant-witnesses. The results are very similar to the 2001 results in showing that the sequential lineup is less likely to result in an identification of the suspect, but also more diagnostic of guilt than is the simultaneous lineup. An examination of the full diagnostic design dataset (27 tests that used the full simultaneous/sequential × culprit-present/culprit-absent design) showed that the average gap in correct identifications favoring the simultaneous lineup over the sequential lineup—8%—is smaller than the 15% figure obtained from the 2001 meta-analysis (and from the current full 72-test dataset). The lower error rate incurred for culprit-absent lineups with use of a sequential format remains consistent across the years, with 22% fewer errors than simultaneous lineups. A Bayesian analysis shows that the posterior probability of guilt following an identification of the suspect is higher for the sequential lineup across the entire base rate for culprit presence/absence. New ways to think about policy issues are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Research-based reforms for collecting eyewitness identification evidence (e.g., unbiased pre-lineup instructions, double-blind administration) have been proposed by psychologists and adopted in increasing numbers of jurisdictions across the United States. It is well known that reducing rates of mistaken identifications can also reduce accurate identification rates (hits). But the reforms are largely designed to reduce the suggestiveness of the procedures they are meant to replace. Accordingly, we argue that it is misleading to label any hits obtained because of suggestive procedures as "hits" and then saddle reforms with the charge that they reduce the rate of these illegitimate hits. Eyewitness identification evidence should be based solely on the independent memory of the witness, not aided by biased instructions, cues from lineup administrators, or the use of lineup fillers who make the suspect stand out. Failure to call out these hits as being illegitimate can give solace to those who are motivated to preserve the status quo.
© The Author(s) 2012.
A review is made of issues and data on eyewitness identifications, and a relative-judgment conceptualization is proposed. It is argued that eyewitnesses are prone to choose the lineup member who most resembles the perpetrator relative to other lineup members as evidenced by studies that manipulated similarity of lineup members. The relative-judgment strategy is fallacious because of the unpredictable occurrence of target-absent lineups and is not corrected fully by instructions to eyewitnesses. An extension of the relative-judgment conceptualization proposes an inverse relationship between the goodness of witnesses' memories (quality and quantity of relevant information available in memory) and witnesses' tendencies to rely on relative judgments. This extended conceptualization was used to derive expectations regarding an experiment (N= 192 eyewitnesses) that used a blank lineup prior to presenting eyewitnesses with the actual lineup. The data indicated that a blank lineup can yield a diagnostic split of eyewitnesses; those who made no identification when presented with a blank lineup were less likely to make false identifications on the actual lineup than either the witnesses who identified someone from the blank lineup or the witnesses who were not presented with a blank lineup. The blank lineup did not produce a significant loss in accurate identifications. The practical implications of using blank lineups and the theoretical utility of the relative-judgment conceptualization are discussed.
It is well-accepted that eyewitness identification decisions based on relative judgments are less accurate than identification decisions based on absolute judgments. However, the theoretical foundation for this view has not been established. In this study relative and absolute judgments were compared through simulations of the WITNESS model (Clark, Appl Cogn Psychol 17:629-654, 2003) to address the question: Do suspect identifications based on absolute judgments have higher probative value than suspect identifications based on relative judgments? Simulations of the WITNESS model showed a consistent advantage for absolute judgments over relative judgments for suspect-matched lineups. However, simulations of same-foils lineups showed a complex interaction based on the accuracy of memory and the similarity relationships among lineup members.
An information-gain approach to the analysis and interpretation of eyewitness identification data is described. The information-gain analysis is grounded in Bayesian statistics, permitting the important role of prior probabilities to be explored. This approach also forces a more complete treatment of the data and reveals important patterns that have escaped previous attention in the eyewitness identification literature. Particularly important is the ability of information-gain analyses to make salient the exonerating value of eyewitness behaviors rather than just their incriminating value. Analyses of sample data sets show how the exonerating value of filler identifications and "not there" responses can actually exceed the incriminating value of identifications of the suspect at certain points in the distribution of prior probabilities.
Two influential models of recognition memory, the unequal-variance signal-detection model and a dual-process threshold/detection model, accurately describe the receiver operating characteristic, but only the latter model can provide estimates of recollection and familiarity. Such estimates often accord with those provided by the remember-know procedure, and both methods are now widely used in the neuroscience literature to identify the brain correlates of recollection and familiarity. However, in recent years, a substantial literature has accumulated directly contrasting the signal-detection model against the threshold/detection model, and that literature is almost unanimous in its endorsement of signal-detection theory. A dual-process version of signal-detection theory implies that individual recognition decisions are not process pure, and it suggests new ways to investigate the brain correlates of recognition memory.
Pairs (N=234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness's propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.
The fairness of line-ups and photospreads is a traditional concern of research and policy development in the area of eyewitness identification. Quantification of fairness, the construction of fairness indices, and the development of evaluation procedures started in the 1970s and continues to this day. This paper reviews the historical development of the field as an introduction to the articles that follow. The entire set of articles addresses current questions and raises new issues of measuring the fairness of identification procedures.
For scientists seeking to play a positive role in policy and politics and contribute to the sustainability of the scientific enterprise, scientists have choices in what role they play. This book is about understanding this choice. Rather than prescribing what course of action each scientist ought to take, the book aims to identify a range of options. Using examples from a range of scientific controversies, The Honest Broker challenges us all - scientists, politicians and citizens - to think carefully about how best science can contribute to policy-making and a healthy democracy.
We present a review of global matching models of recognition memory, describing their theoretical origins and fundamental assumptions, focusing on two defining properties: (1) recognition is based solely on familiarity due to a match of test items to memory at a global level, and (2) multiple cues are combined interactively. We evaluate the models against relevant data bearing on issues including the representation of associative information, differences in verbal and environmental context effects, list-length, list-strength, and global similarity effects, and ROC functions. Two main modifications to the models are discussed: one based on the representation of associative information, and the other based on the addition of recall-like retrieval mechanisms.
Psychological science has come to play an increasingly important role in the legal system by informing the court through expert testimony and by shaping public policy. In recent years, psychological research has driven a movement to reform the procedures that police use to obtain eyewitness identification evidence. This reform movement has been based in part on an argument suggesting that recommended procedures reduce the risk of false identifications with little or no reduction in the rate of correct identifications. A review of the empirical literature, however, challenges this no-cost view. With only one exception, changes in eyewitness identification procedures that reduce the risk of false identification of the innocent also reduce the likelihood of correct identification of the guilty. The implication that criminals may escape prosecution as a result of procedures implemented to protect the innocent makes policy decisions far more complicated than they would otherwise be under the no-cost view. These costs (correct identifications lost) and benefits (false identifications avoided) are discussed in terms of probative value and expected utility.
© The Author(s) 2012.
On the first day of April of 2012, an interesting trial took place in Wells County, exactly 103 years after the famous trial described by Wigmore (1909). The defendant, D, was charged with brutally stabbing a homeless man just after midnight on New Year’s Day. Before the police arrived on the crime scene, the perpetrator, rushing to flee the scene, knocked into a witness who had seen the stabbing, Miss Jane Takin. Three weeks after the crime, a detective called Jane and asked her to participate in a procedure to see whether she could identify the perpetrator. Detective Sy M. Taneous (whose friends call him Mel, which is his middle name) constructed a photo lineup using his standard procedure. He selected five foils and put D’s photo in Position #3. After looking over the photos for several minutes, Jane identified D as the criminal. During D’s trial, the prosecution put on their star witness, Jane, who testified that she had picked D out of the photo lineup, and she reaffirmed her identification of him in court. The defense put on an expert witness, a respected psychological scientist who studies eyewitness memory, Professor William S. Devlin (whose friends called him WSD). WSD testified for over an hour, primarily about the problems with the identification procedure. He took issue, in particular, with the fact that Detective Taneous had presented the photos simultaneously and administered the identification procedure being well aware of the identity of the suspect. In an unusual move, the prosecution, during rebuttal, put on a different eyewitness expert to counter WSD’s testimony. Their expert, Professor Cleve Stark, is a well-regarded psychological scientist who specializes in mathematical modeling of eyewitness identification. We obtained a transcript of Dr.Stark’s cross examination by the defense attorney and present portions of it in this commentary.
Professor Tribe considers the accuracy, appropriateness, and possible dangers of utilizing mathematical methods in the legal process, first in the actual conduct of civil and criminal trials, and then in designing procedures for the trial system as a whole. He concludes that the utility of mathematical methods for these purposes has been greatly exaggerated. Even if mathematical techniques could significantly enhance the accuracy of the trial process, Professor Tribe also shows that their inherent conflict with other important values would be too great to allow their general use.
Recognition memory was investigated with a concomitant rating of the S's confidence in his judgment. The probability of making a correct response as a function of the criterion adopted by the S is defined as the Operating Characteristic. One and 2 learning trials as well as 5-and 7-point rating scales are used. The results indicate that operating characteristics are linear although large intragroup differences exist. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The research area of interpersonal expectancy effects originally derived from a general consideration of the effects of experimenters on the results of their research. One of these is the expectancy effect, the tendency for experimenters to obtain results they expect, not simply because they have correctly anticipated nature's response but rather because they have helped to shape that response through their expectations. When behavioral researchers expect certain results from their human (or animal) subjects they appear unwittingly to treat them in such a way as to increase the probability that they will respond as expected.
In the first few years of research on this problem of the interpersonal (or interorganism) self-fulfilling prophecy, the “prophet” was always an experimenter and the affected phenomenon was always the behavior of an experimental subject. In more recent years, however, the research has been extended from experimenters to teachers, employers, and therapists whose expectations for their pupils, employees, and patients might also come to serve as interpersonal self-fulfilling prophecies.
Our general purpose is to summarize the results of 345 experiments investigating interpersonal expectancy effects. These studies fall into eight broad categories of research: reaction time, inkblot tests, animal learning, laboratory interviews, psychophysical judgments, learning and ability, person perception, and everyday life situations. For the entire sample of studies, as well as for each specific research area, we (1) determine the overall probability that interpersonal expectancy effects do in fact occur, (2) estimate their average magnitude so as to evaluate their substantive and methodological importance, and (3) illustrate some methods that may be useful to others wishing to summarize quantitatively entire bodies of research (a practice that is, happily, on the increase).
A computer simulation model of eyewitness identification called WITNESS is proposed and fit to data from three experiments: Juslin et al. (1996), Tunnicliff and Clark (2000), and Wells et al. (1993). These three experiments directly compared two procedures for selecting foils for lineups: by selecting foils that either match the photograph of the suspect or match the description of the perpetrator given by the witness. The model assumes that (a) memory of a perpetrator is incomplete and error-prone, (b) lineup alternatives are matched to this error-prone memory trace, (c) identification decisions are based on a combination of relative and absolute match information, and (d) lineup rejections are based solely on absolute match information. The model provided good fits to data, although with important deviations between the model and data. Implications and limitations of the model, as well as future development of the model, are discussed. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
It is well known that the frailties of human memory and vulnerability to suggestion lead to eyewitness identification errors. However, variations in different aspects of the eyewitnessing conditions produce different kinds of errors that are related to wrongful convictions in very different ways. We present a review of the eyewitness identification literature, organized around underlying cognitive mechanisms, memory, similarity, and decision processes, assessing the effects on both correct and mistaken identification. In addition, we calculate a conditional probability we call innocence risk, which is the probability that the suspect is innocent, given that the suspect was identified. Assessment of innocence risk is critical to the theoretical development of eyewitness identification research, as well as to legal decision making and policy evaluation. Our review shows a complex relationship between misidentification and innocence risk, sheds light on some areas of controversy, and suggests that some issues thought to be resolved are in need of additional research.
The discovery of the conditioned reflex is generally credited to Ivan P. Pavlov. So closely is Pavlov associated with this phenomenon that it is commonly referred to as the Pavlovian conditioned reflex. Edwin B. Twitmyer independently discovered the conditioned reflex at approximately the same time and reported the finding in 1904 at the meeting of the American Psychological Association. Unlike Pavlov's, Twitmyer's data had little impact on psychology. There have been various hypotheses to explain the failure of the field to recognize Twitmyer's discovery. These explanations are criticized and modified to reflect an emphasis on Twitmyer's and Pavlov's respective social and intellectual contexts.
Interactive effects of photospread procedures (blind administration or has knowledge of suspect identity) and presentation techniques (sequential or simultaneous photospreads) on false eyewitness identification rates were examined. Of 117 subjects (57 men and 60 women), 87 served as a witness sample and 30 as a photospread administrator sample. Witnesses viewed a 20-sec. mock robbery video prior to viewing a photospread of six photographs either simultaneously or sequentially. Half of the administrators, prior to displaying the photospreads, were made aware of the photograph of the designated suspect (single-blind condition). Consistent with previous findings, sequential presentation was associated with both lower overall false identification rates as well as lower suspect designated-misidentification rates. In each case, there was evidence that administrators' knowledge increased false identification rates more in simultaneous than in sequential presentation conditions. Implications for administrations by police investigators are discussed.
Improving the sequential lineup? The effects of double blind testing and the envelope tech-nique on post-identification feedback. Paper presented at American Psychology, Law Society Annual Meeting Double-blind lineup administration and the post-identification feedback effect
- J E Dysart
- L Fugal
Dysart, J. E., & Fugal, L. (2006, March). Improving the sequential lineup? The effects of double blind testing and the envelope tech-nique on post-identification feedback. Paper presented at American Psychology, Law Society Annual Meeting, St. Petersburg, FL. Dysart, J. E., Rainey, A., Owens, J., Chong, K., & Lawson, V. Z. (2008, March). Double-blind lineup administration and the post-identification feedback effect. Paper presented at American Psy-chology, Law Society Annual Meeting, Jacksonville, FL.
What dilemma? Moral intuitions shape factual beliefs
- B Liu
- P H Ditto
Liu, B., & Ditto, P. H. (2012). What dilemma? Moral intuitions shape factual beliefs. Manuscript under review.
What does signal detection theory say about eyewit-ness memory? Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the
- L Mickes
- V Hwe
- T M Carlisle
- J C Mcelfresh
- J T Wixted
Mickes, L., Hwe, V., Carlisle, T. M., McElfresh, J. C., & Wixted, J. T. (2011). What does signal detection theory say about eyewit-ness memory? Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Seattle, WA.
Testing the effects of lineup admin-istrator knowledge in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Paper presented at American Psychology-Law Society Biennial Meet-ing Seventy-two test of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion
- M B Russano
- J J Dickinson
- S A Cass
- M B Kovera
- B L K Cutler
- J E Dysart
- G L Wells
Russano, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., Cass, S. A., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (2002, March). Testing the effects of lineup admin-istrator knowledge in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Paper presented at American Psychology-Law Society Biennial Meet-ing, Austin, TX. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two test of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139.
Picking cot-ton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption
- J Thompson-Caninno
- R Cotton
- E Torneo
Thompson-Caninno, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cot-ton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York, NY: St.
Why people obey the law Theory of games and economic behavior
- T R J Tyler
- O Morgenstern
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
A test of the simul-taneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies Eyewitness iden-tification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits?
- G L Wells
- N K Steblay
- J E Dysart
Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2011). A test of the simul-taneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/~glwells/Wells_articles_ pdf/ EWID_PrintFriendly.pdf Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2012). Eyewitness iden-tification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264–271.
A test of the simultaneous vs. sequential lineup methods: An initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies
- G L Wells
- N K Steblay
- J E Dysart