Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 282–294 | Cite as

Does Post-identification Feedback Affect Evaluations of Eyewitness Testimony and Identification Procedures?

  • Amy Bradfield Douglass
  • Jeffrey S. Neuschatz
  • Jennifer Imrich
  • Miranda Wilkinson
Original Article

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to test whether post-identification feedback affects evaluations of eyewitnesses. In Experiment 1 (N = 156), evaluators viewed eyewitness testimony. They evaluated witnesses who received confirming post-identification feedback as more accurate and more confident, among other judgments, compared with witnesses who received disconfirming post-identification feedback or no feedback. This pattern persisted regardless of whether the witness’s confidence statement was included in the testimony. In Experiment 2 (N = 161), witness evaluators viewed the actual identification procedure in which feedback was delivered. Instructions to disregard the feedback were manipulated. Again, witnesses who received confirming feedback were assessed more positively. This pattern occurred even when witness evaluators received instructions to disregard the feedback. These experiments are the first to confirm researchers’ assumptions that feedback effects on witnesses translate to changes in judgments of those witnesses.

Keywords

Post-identification feedback Eyewitness memory Testimony 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Erik Hood, Sarah Jordan, and Amy Rosania for their assistance in data collection and data entry for witness data in Experiment 1. We thank Afton Pavletic for her assistance in producing portions of the manuscript. We also thank Andrea Lichtman whose senior honors thesis inspired Experiment 1.

References

  1. Australian Law Reform Commission (2005). Discussion Paper 69, Review of the Uniform Evidence Acts.Google Scholar
  2. Bradfield, A., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). When does evidence of eyewitness confidence inflation affect judgments in a criminal trial? Law and Human Behavior, 28(4), 369–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradfield, A. L., & Wells, G. L. (2000). The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: A test of the five Biggers criteria. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 581–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradfield, A. L., Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 112–120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Charman, S. D., & Wells, G. L. (2008). Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(1), 5–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., & Semmler, C. (in press). Moderators of post-identification feedback effects on eyewitnesses’ memory reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology.Google Scholar
  10. Douglass, A. B., & Jones, E. (2009). Evaluations of confidence inflation in eyewitnesses: Does it matter how the original confidence statement is preserved? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  11. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. E. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospread presentation and warning eyewitnesses of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(8), 991–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Douglass, A. B., Smith, C., & Fraser-Thill, R. (2005). A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness’s confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness. Law and Human Behavior, 29(5), 543–562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. M. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 859–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doyle, J. M. (2005). True witness: Cops, courts, science, and the battle against misidentification. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10(3), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators’ expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19(1), 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hafstad, G. S., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1106–1112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, E. E., Williams, K. D., & Brewer, N. (2008). ‘I had a confidence epiphany!’: Obstacles to combating post-identification confidence inflation. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 164–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 649–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(10), 1046–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lampinen, J. M., Scott, J., Pratt, F., Leding, J. K., & Arnal, J. D. (2007). ‘Good you identified the suspect… but please ignore this feedback’: Can warnings eliminate the effects of post-identification feedback? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(8), 1037–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manson v. Braithwaite. (1977). 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243.Google Scholar
  26. Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 225–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Pfeifer, J. E. (2003). Jury nullification: The influence of judicial instruction on the relationship between attitudes and juridic decision-making. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Fairless, A. H., Powers, R. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Goodsell, C. A., et al. (2007). The mitigating effects of suspicion on post-identification feedback and on retrospective eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 31(3), 231–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. P., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., et al. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Niedermeier, K. E., Horowitz, I. A., & Kerr, N. L. (1999). Informing jurors of their nullification power: A route to a just verdict or judicial chaos? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Jimenez, A., Cling, A. D., Douglass, A. B., & Goodsell, C. A. (2009). Do prophylactics prevent inflation?: Post-identification feedback and the effectiveness of procedures to protect against confidence-inflation in earwitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 111–121.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Quinlivan, D. S., Wells, G. L., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2009). Is manipulative intent necessary to mitigate the eyewitness post-identification feedback effect? Law and Human Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9179-7.
  33. R v. Turnbull. Queen’s Bench 224 (1976).Google Scholar
  34. Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 15(5), 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 334–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses’ recollections: Can the post-identification feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10(2), 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 681–696.Google Scholar
  39. Wells, G. L., Olson, E. A., & Charman, S. D. (2003). Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9(1), 42–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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, 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Williams, L. A., & DeSteno, D. (2009). Pride: Adaptive social emotion or seventh sin? Psychological Science, 20, 284–288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Windschitl, P. D., & Wells, G. L. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7(3), 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Post-identification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172–178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Bradfield Douglass
    • 1
  • Jeffrey S. Neuschatz
    • 2
  • Jennifer Imrich
    • 1
  • Miranda Wilkinson
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBates CollegeLewistonUSA
  2. 2.University of AlabamaHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations