Advertisement

Post-identification Feedback to Eyewitnesses: Implications for System Variable Reform

  • Amy Bradfield DouglassEmail author
  • Laura Smalarz
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Psychology and Law book series (APL, volume 4)

Abstract

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).

Keywords

Post-identification feedback Eyewitness decisions Confidence malleability Retrospective confidence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Bates College Summer Research Apprentice Program and Paola Herrera for assistance in preparing this chapter. Portions of work on this chapter were supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. SES-1627433 to Amy Douglass and Neil Brewer. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Alvarez, M. J., Miller, M. K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). ‘It will be your duty…:’ The psychology of criminal jury instructions. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 119–158). New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_4.Google Scholar
  2. Beaudry, J. L., Lindsay, R. C. L., Leach, A., Mansour, J. K., Bertrand, M. I., & Kalmet, N. (2015). The effect of evidence type, identification accuracy line-up presentation, and line-up administration on observers’ perceptions of eyewitnesses. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 20, 343–364.  https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of the cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhaskara, A., Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Douglass, A. B. (2016). Eyewitnesses’ objective judgments about viewing time and distance can be distorted by post-identification information. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  5. Bradfield, A., & Wells, G. L. (2005). Not the same old hindsight bias: Outcome information distorts a broad range of retrospective judgments. Memory & Cognition, 33, 120–130.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 112–120.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks, W. G. (2017). U.S. Identification Procedures. Eyewitness Identification Workshop, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, C. A., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118–128.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cash, D. K., & Lane, S. M. (2017). Context influences interpretation of eyewitness confidence statements. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 180–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charman, S. D., Carlucci, M., Vallano, J., & Gregory, A. H. (2010). The selective cue integration framework: A theory of postidentification witness confidence assessment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 204–218.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Charman, S. D., & Quiroz, V. (2016). Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 477–487.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000197.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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, 5–20. http://dx.doi.org.lprx.bates.edu/10.1037/1076-898X.14.1.5.
  13. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 575–604.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-7121-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, S. E. (2012). Eyewitness identification reform: Data, theory, and due process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 279–283.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612444136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 151–172.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-2418-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodson, C. S., & Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). Misinterpreting eyewitness expressions of confidence: The featural justification effect. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 266–280.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000120.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., & Semmler, C. (2010a). Moderators of post-identification feedback effects on eyewitnesses’ memory reports. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 279–292.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X446337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglass, A. B., & Jones, E. E. (2013). Confidence inflation in eyewitnesses: Seeing is not believing. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 152–167.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02031.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses’ awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991–1007.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J. F., & Wilkinson, M. (2010b). Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law and Human Behavior, 34, 282–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859–869.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dysart, J. E., Lawson, V. Z., & Rainey, A. (2012). Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the post identification feedback effect. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 312–319.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093921.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fitzgerald, R. J., Price, H. L., Oriet, C., & Charman, S. D. (2013). The effect of suspect-filler similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 151–164.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. E. (2001). Lineup administrators’ expectations: Their impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 299–315.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010750028643.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 70–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. http://dx.doi.org.lprx.bates.edu/10.1002/acp.1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jones, A. M., Bergold, A. N., Dillon, M. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2017). Comparing the effectiveness of Henderson instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13, 29–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9279-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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, 164–176.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9101-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kassin, S. M. (1985). Eyewitness identification: Retrospective self-awareness and the accuracy-confidence correlation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 878–893.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649–653.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025702722645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kassin, S. M., Kukucka, J., Lawson, V. Z., & DeCarlo, J. (2014). Does video recording alter the behavior of police during interrogation? A mock crime-and-investigation study. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kassin, S. M., Rigby, S., & Castillo, S. R. (1991). The accuracy-confidence correlation in eyewitness testimony: Limits and extensions of the retrospective self-awareness effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598–707.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.5.698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lampinen, J. M., Scott, J., Pratt, D., 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, 1037–1056.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindsay, R. C., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.70.3.556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed.2d 140 (1977).Google Scholar
  39. National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18891.
  40. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L. Ed.2d 401, 411 (1972).Google Scholar
  41. 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, 231–247.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9047-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A. 3d 872 (2011).Google Scholar
  44. Oregon v. Classen 590 P.2d 1198. (1979). 285 Or. 221.Google Scholar
  45. Oregon v. Lawson, SC S059306 (2012).Google Scholar
  46. Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., & Weber, N. (2010). Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 16, 387–398. http://dx.doi.org.lprx.bates.edu/10.1037/a0021034.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Papailiou, A. P., Yokum, D. V., & Robertson, C. T. (2015). The novel New Jersey eyewitness instruction induces skepticism but not sensitivity. PLoS One, 10.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pastore, A. L., & Maguire, K. (2003). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. U.S. Department of Justice (Eds.), Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: USGPO.Google Scholar
  49. Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Comparing methods of encountering post-event information: The power of co-witness suggestion. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1083–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perry v. New Hampshire. 565 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 716, 181 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2012).Google Scholar
  51. Phillips, M. R., McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940–951.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Police Executive Research Forum. (2013). A National survey of eyewitness identification procedures in law enforcement agencies. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, March 8, 2013.Google Scholar
  53. Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Cutler, B. L., Wells, G. L., McClung, J., & Harker, D. L. (2012). Do pre-admonition suggestions moderate the effect of unbiased lineup instructions? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 165–176.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532510X533554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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 ear-witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 111–121.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9132-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Quinlivan, D. S., Wells, G. L., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2010). Is manipulative intent necessary to mitigate the eyewitness post-identification feedback effect? Law and Human Behavior, 34, 186–197. http://dx.doi.org.lprx.bates.edu/10.1007/s10979-009-9179-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reardon, M. C., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). Effect of viewing the interview and identification process on juror perceptions on eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 68–77.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sauer, J., & Brewer, N. (2015). Confidence and accuracy of eyewitness identification. In T. Valentine & J. Davis (Eds.), Forensic facial identification: Theory and practice of identification from eyewitnesses, composites, and CCTV (pp. 185–208). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Semmler, C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 334–346.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.334.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Shaw, J. S., III, Appio, L. M., Zerr, T. K., & Pontoski, L. E. (2007). Public eyewitness confidence can be influenced by the presence to other witnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 629–652.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9080-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489–497.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2008). The prevalence of co-witnesses and co-witness discussions in real eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 14, 513–521.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160801948980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2009). Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 506–523.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smalarz, L., Greathouse, S. M., Wells, G. L., & Newirth, K. A. (2016). Psychological science on eyewitness identification and the U.S. Supreme Court: Reconsiderations in light of DNA exonerations and the science of eyewitness identification. In C. Willis-Esqueda, R. Wiener, & B. Bornstein (Eds.), The witness stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr. (pp. 17–39). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smalarz, L., Scherr, K. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016b). Miranda at 50: A psychological analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 455–460.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416665097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014a). Confirming feedback following a mistaken identification impairs memory for the culprit. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 283–292.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014b). Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators’ abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 194–202.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000067.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Smalarz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2015). Contamination of eyewitness self-reports and the mistaken-identification problem. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 120–124.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414554394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sommers, S. R., & Douglass, A. B. (2007). Context matters: Alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 41–54.  https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X114301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–297.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024890732059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1037/law000001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Supreme Judicial Court Study Group on Eyewitness Evidence: Report and Recommendations to the Justices. (2013). Downloaded from http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/sjc/docs/eyewitness-evidence-report-2013.pdf (9/8/17).
  73. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, D.C: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.Google Scholar
  74. Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  75. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed.2d 1149 (1967).Google Scholar
  76. United States Department of Justice (2017, January 6). Eyewitness identification: Procedures for conducting photo arrays. Memorandum for heads of department law enforcement components all department prosecutors.Google Scholar
  77. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 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, 360–376.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.3.360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1999). Measuring the goodness of lineups: Parameter estimation, question effects, and limits to the mock witness paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S27–S39.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199911)13:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wells, G. L., Greathouse, S. M., & Smalarz, L. (2012). Why do motions to suppress suggestive eyewitness identifications fail? In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Conviction of the innocent: Lessons from psychological research (pp. 167–184). Washington, D.C., US: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/13085-008.
  82. Wells, G. L., Lindsay, R. C., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 440–448.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.64.4.440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). The eyewitness post-identification feedback effect: What is the function of flexible confidence estimates for autobiographical events? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1153–1163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wells, G. L., & Quigley-McBride, A. (2016). Applying eyewitness identification research to the legal system: A glance at where we have been and where we could go. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 290–294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2012b). Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264–271.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612443368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2015a). Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: An experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000096.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025750605807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wells, G. L., Yang, Y., & Smalarz, L. (2015b). Eyewitness identification: Bayesian information gain, base rate effect equivalency curves, and reasonable suspicion. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 99–122.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2013). Eyewitness system variables. In B. L. Cutler & B. L. Cutler (Eds.), Reform of eyewitness identification procedures (pp. 23–43). Washington, D.C., US: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/14094-002.
  90. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2010). A comparison of what U.S. judges and students know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1400–1422.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00623.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75–84.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199602)10:1%3c75:AID-ACP364%3e3.0.CO;2-E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172–178.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01868.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bates CollegeLewistonUSA
  2. 2.Williams CollegeWilliamstownUSA

Personalised recommendations