Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 241–258 | Cite as

Repeated Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Memory, Decision Making, and Probative Value

Original Article


Two experiments examined the effects of multiple identification procedures on identification responses, confidence, and similarity relationships. When the interval between first and second identification procedures was long (Experiment 1), correct and false identifications increased, but the probative value of a suspect identification changed little; consistent witnesses were more confident than inconsistent witnesses; and the similarity relationships between suspect and foils were unchanged. When the interval between first and second identification procedures was short (Experiment 2), suspect identification rates changed little, but foil identifications increased significantly; confidence for all identifications increased; consistent witnesses were more confident than inconsistent witnesses; and similarity relationships changed such that witnesses were less likely to identify the suspect as being the best match to the perpetrator.


Eyewitness identification Repeated testing procedures Memory Decision making 



The authors thank Kathy Pezdek for providing the raw data from Hinz & Pezdek (2001), Neil Brewer for his insightful comments and suggestions, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department for their assistance. This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant SES-0647947.


  1. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, D. L., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D., & Hoff, E. (1975). Eyewitness identification: Effects of suggestion and bias in identification from photographs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6, 71–74.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, S. E., & Godfrey, R. D. (2009). Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 22–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 32(3), 187–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deffenbacher, K. A. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Can we infer anything about their relationship? Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), 287–307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2001). A context noise model of episodic word recognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 452–478.Google Scholar
  10. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mug shot exposure prior to lineup identification: Interference, transference and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1280–1284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Federal Rules of Evidence. (2004). Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Congress, House of Representatives. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. Greenberg, M. S., & Ruback, R. B. (1992). Effect of a prior lineup identification on subsequent lineup identification. In T. Grisso (Ed.) Perspectives in law & psychology: After the crime, victim decision making (pp. 65–69). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gronlund, S. D., & Elam, L. E. (1994). List-length effect: Recognition accuracy and variance of underlying distributions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1355–1369.Google Scholar
  14. Haw, R. M., Dickinson, J. J., & Meissner, C. A. (2007). The phenomenology of carryover effects between show-up and line-up identification. Memory, 15(1), 117–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hinz, T., & Pezdek, K. (2001). The effect of exposure to multiple lineups on face identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 185–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. (1991). “The big five” inventory—version 4a and 54. Technical Report. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, S. D. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5), 1304–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindsay, R. C. L., Nosworthy, G. J., Martin, R., & Martynuck, C. (1994). Using mug shots to find suspects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 121–130.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindsay, S. D., Allen, G. P., Chan, J. C. K., & Dahl, L. C. (2004). Eyewitness suggestibility and source similarity: Intrusions of details from one event into memory reports of another event. Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 96–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lindsay, S. D., Hagen, L., Read, J. D., Wade, K. A., & Garry, M. (2004). True photographs and false memories. Psychological Science, 15(3), 149–154.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93–98.Google Scholar
  23. Memon, A., Hope, L., Bartlett, J., & Bull, R. (2002). Eyewitness recognition errors: The effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1219–1227.Google Scholar
  24. Olsson, N. (2000). A comparison of correlation, calibration, and diagnosticity as measures of the confidence-accuracy relationship in witness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 504–511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pezdek, K., & Blandon-Gitlin, I. (2005). When is an intervening line-up most likely to affect eyewitness identification accuracy? Legal & Criminological Psychology, 10, 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaw, J. S. (1996). Increases in eyewitness confidence resulting from postevent questioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2(2), 126–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shaw, J. S., & McClure, K. A. (1996). Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(6), 629–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  30. Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 776–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A. Goldstein (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, vol. 11, Forensic psychology (pp. 149–160). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(3), 155–167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the supreme court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 1–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wells, G. L., & Seelau, E. P. (1995). Eyewitness identification: Psychological research and legal policy on lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 765–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Accessed 30 June 2009.

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of California, RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations