Repeated Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Memory, Decision Making, and Probative Value
- 250 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEyewitness 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.
- 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
- Dennis, S., & Humphreys, M. S. (2001). A context noise model of episodic word recognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 452–478.Google Scholar
- Federal Rules of Evidence. (2004). Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Congress, House of Representatives. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93–98.Google Scholar
- 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
- Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- 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
- www.innocenceproject.org. Accessed 30 June 2009.