Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 287–307 | Cite as

Mugshot Exposure Effects: Retroactive Interference, Mugshot Commitment, Source Confusion, and Unconscious Transference

  • Kenneth A. DeffenbacherEmail author
  • Brian H. Bornstein
  • Steven D. Penrod

More than 25 years of research has accumulated concerning the possible biasing effects of mugshot exposure to eyewitnesses. Two separate metaanalyses were conducted on 32 independent tests of the hypothesis that prior mugshot exposure decreases witness accuracy at a subsequent lineup. Mugshot exposure both significantly decreased proportion correct and increased the false alarm rate, the effect being greater on false alarms. A mugshot commitment effect, arising from the identification of someone in a mugshot, was a substantial moderator of both these effects. Simple retroactive interference, where the target person is not included among mugshots and no one in a mugshot is present in the subsequent lineup, did not significantly impair target identification. A third metaanalysis was conducted on 19 independent tests of the hypothesis that failure of memory for facial source or context results in transference errors. The effect size was more than twice as large for “transference” studies involving mugshot exposure in proximate temporal context with the target than for “bystander” studies with no subsequent mugshot exposure.

Key words:

mugshots photobiased lineups retroactive interference source confusion unconscious transference 


  1. References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the metaanalyses. Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett, J. C., & Fulton, A. (1991). Familiarity and recognition of faces: The factor of age. Memory & Cognition, 19, 229–238.Google Scholar
  3. *Brigham, J. C., & Cairns, D. (1988). The effect of mugshot inspections on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1393–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. *Brown, E. L., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. *Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. *Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & O'Rourke, T. E. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behaviour, 1, 113–134.Google Scholar
  9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U. S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  10. *Davies, G., Shepherd, J., & Ellis, H. (1979). Effects of interpolated mugshot exposure on accuracy of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. *Deffenbacher, K. A., Carr, T. H., & Leu, J. R. (1981). Memory for words, pictures, and faces: Retroactive interference, forgetting, and reminiscence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. *Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup identification: Interference, transference, and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1280–1284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. *Gorenstein, G. W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1980). Effect of choosing an incorrect photograph on a later identification by an eyewitness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 616–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacoby, L. L., Kelley, C., Brown, J., & Jasechko, J. (1989). Becoming famous overnight: Limits on the ability to avoid unconscious influences of the past. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 326–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. *Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2, 93–98.Google Scholar
  21. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. *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
  23. *Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31, 570–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. *Read, J. D., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., & Christensen, A. (1990). The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3–31.Google Scholar
  25. Reisberg, D., & Heuer, F. (2006). The influence of emotion on memory in forensic settings. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & Lindsay, R. C. L. (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for events (Vol. 1). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychologist, 45, 1043–1056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. *Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). A meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968).Google Scholar
  31. Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williams, G. (1963). The proof of guilt. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  33. Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2004). What U. S. judges know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth A. Deffenbacher
    • 1
    Email author
  • Brian H. Bornstein
    • 2
  • Steven D. Penrod
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska at OmahaOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.John Jay College of Criminal JusticeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations