Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Investigators: How Presentation Order Influences Participant–Investigators’ Interpretations of Eyewitness Identification and Alibi Evidence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Presentation order of ID and Alibi evidence was manipulated for undergraduate participants who conducted a simulated police investigation. Experiment 1 found a recency effect when an eyewitness rejected the investigator’s suspect. Experiment 2 also examined order effects, exploring how participant–investigators evaluated alibi information in addition to eyewitness ID information. When investigators saw the witness identify the suspect but also received a strong alibi for that suspect a recency effect occurred, such that whichever piece of information occurred at the end of the procedure had the strongest impact on investigators. Thus, type of evidence and evidence order both had a dramatic influence on participant–investigators’ decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, all participants in this study chose the same suspect as the database was designed to suggest the guilt of that suspect.

  2. Both the strong and weak videos were pilot tested to ensure that they were viewed as appropriately strong and weak alibis. In the weak alibi condition the mean was 3.14 with a standard deviation of 1.33. In the strong alibi condition the mean was 7.83 with a standard deviation of 1.54.

References

  • Aamodt, M. G., & Custer, H. (2006). Who can best catch a liar?: A meta-analysis of individual differences in detecting deception. Forensic Examiner, 15, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adelman, L., Tolcott, M. A., & Bresnick, T. A. (1993). Examining the effect of information order on expert judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 348–369. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D. (1963). A zeigarnik-like effect in the recall of anagram solutions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 63–64. doi:10.1080/17470216308416553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergus, G. R., Chapman, G. B., Gjerde, C., & Elstein, A. S. (1995). Clinical reasoning about new symptoms despite preexisting disease: Sources of error and order effects. Family Medicine, 27, 314–320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A., & Whitten, W. B. (1974). Recency-sensitive retrieval processes. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 173–189. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90009-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 691–695. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.4.691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyce, M. A., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. Investigating investigators: Examining the impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators. Law and Human Behavior (in press).

  • Burke, T. M., & Turtle, J. W. (2003). Alibi evidence in criminal investigations and trials: Psychological and legal factors. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 3, 286–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, T. M., Turtle, J. W., & Olson, E. A. (2007). Alibis in criminal investigations and trials. In M. P. Toglia, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol I: Memory for events (pp. 157–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busey, T. A., Tunnicliff, J., Loftus, G. R., & Loftus, E. F. (2000). Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 26–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K. A., & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 7, 91–103. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.7.2.91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, G. B., & Elstein, A. S. (2000). Cognitive processes and biases in medical decision making. In G. B. Chapman & F. A. Sonenberg (Eds.), Decision making in health care: Theory, psychology, and applications (pp. 183–210). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Constabile, K. A., & Klein, S. B. (2005). Finishing strong: Recency effects in juror judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 47–58. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2701_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Culhane, S. E., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An alibi witness’s influence on jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1604–1616. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02789.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunnington, J. P., Turnbull, J. M., Regehr, G., Marriott, M., & Norman, G. R. (1997). The effect of presentation order in clinical decision making. Academic Medicine, 72, 40–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191. doi:10.1007/BF01062972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41–55. doi:10.1007/BF01064273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, L. C., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2006). Investigating investigators: Examining witnesses’ influence on investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 707–732.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Tindale, R. S., Nagao, D. H., Hinsz, V. B., & Robertson, B. (1984). Order effects in multiple decisions by groups: A demonstration with mock juries and trial procedures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1003–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 2543, 1668–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstein, A., & Schwarz, A. (2002). Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision-making: Selective review of the cognitive literature. British Medical Journal, 324, 729–732.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • FTP Heads of Prosecutions Committee Working Group. (2004, September). Report on the prevention of miscarriages of justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gc.ca/emg/dept-min/pub/pmj-pej/pmj-pej.pdf.

  • Furnham, A. (1986). The robustness of the recency effect: Studies using legal evidence. The Journal of General Psychology, 113, 351–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work? Social Behaviour, 2, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts. Journal of Communication, 30, 209–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, R. C. L., Lim, R., Marando, L., & Cully, D. (1986). Mock juror evaluations of eyewitness testimony: A test of metamemory hypothesis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S., Nilsen, E., & Read, J. D. (2000). Witnessing-condition heterogeneity and witnesses’ versus investigators’ confidence in the accuracy of witnesses’ identification decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 685–697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S., Read, J. D., & Sharma, K. (1998). Accuracy and confidence in person identification: The relationship is strong when witnessing conditions vary widely. Psychological Science, 9, 215–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levett, L. M., Danielsen, E. M., Kovera, M. B., & Cutler, B. (2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In D. Kipling & N. Brewer (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 365–406). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203–220.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1989). Juror underutilization of eyewitness nonidentifications: A test of the disconfirmed expectancy explanation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 20–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 157–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 1, 817–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundus, D. (1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, R. (1984). Helping the jury evaluate eyewitness testimony: The need for additional safeguards. American Journal of Criminal Law, 12, 189–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scullion, K. (1994). Wrongful convictions and the criminal conviction review process pursuant to Section 696.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46, 189–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommers, S. R., & Douglass, A. B. (2007). Context matters: Alibi strength varies according to evaluator perspective. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wallendael, L. R., Cutler, B. L., Devenport, J., & Penrod, S. D. (2007). Mistaken identification = erroneous conviction? Assessing and improving legal safeguards. In M. P. Toglia, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol II: Memory for people (pp. 557–572). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, W., & Wilson, W. (1969). Reliable recency effects. Psychological Reports, 25, 311–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, T. S. (1981). Physician and medical student bias in evaluating diagnostic information. Medical Decision Making, 1, 145–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, W. (1971). Source credibility and order effects. Psychological Reports, 29, 1303–1312.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank J. Don Read and Dan Yarmey for their comments on an earlier version of this work. This work was supported by funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Okanagan College, Kelowna, BC, Canada

    Leora C. Dahl

  2. University of Victoria, Victoria , BC, Canada

    C. A. Elizabeth Brimacombe & D. Stephen Lindsay

Authors
  1. Leora C. Dahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. A. Elizabeth Brimacombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Stephen Lindsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leora C. Dahl.

About this article

Cite this article

Dahl, L.C., Brimacombe, C.A.E. & Lindsay, D.S. Investigating Investigators: How Presentation Order Influences Participant–Investigators’ Interpretations of Eyewitness Identification and Alibi Evidence. Law Hum Behav 33, 368–380 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9151-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9151-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation