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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brooks, W. G. (2017). U.S. Identification Procedures. Eyewitness Identification Workshop, Boston, MA.
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.
Cash, D. K., & Lane, S. M. (2017). Context influences interpretation of eyewitness confidence statements. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 180–190.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649–653. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025702722645.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed.2d 140 (1977).
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891.
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199, 93 S.Ct. 375, 382, 34 L. Ed.2d 401, 411 (1972).
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.
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.
New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A. 3d 872 (2011).
Oregon v. Classen 590 P.2d 1198. (1979). 285 Or. 221.
Oregon v. Lawson, SC S059306 (2012).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perry v. New Hampshire. 565 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 716, 181 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2012).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1285.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed.2d 1149 (1967).
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.
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.
Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.5.553
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Douglass, A.B., Smalarz, L. (2019). Post-identification Feedback to Eyewitnesses: Implications for System Variable Reform. In: Bornstein, B., Miller, M. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11042-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11042-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11041-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11042-0
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)