Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 22–42 | Cite as

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Theoretical and Review Articles

Abstract

It is well known that the frailties of human memory and vulnerability to suggestion lead to eyewitness identification errors. However, variations in different aspects of the eyewitnessing conditions produce different kinds of errors that are related to wrongful convictions in very different ways. We present a review of the eyewitness identification literature, organized around underlying cognitive mechanisms, memory, similarity, and decision processes, assessing the effects on both correct and mistaken identification. In addition, we calculate a conditional probability we call innocence risk, which is the probability that the suspect is innocent, given that the suspect was identified. Assessment of innocence risk is critical to the theoretical development of eyewitness identification research, as well as to legal decision making and policy evaluation. Our review shows a complex relationship between misidentification and innocence risk, sheds light on some areas of controversy, and suggests that some issues thought to be resolved are in need of additional research.

References

  1. American Law Institute (1975). A model code of pre-arraignment procedure. Philadelphia: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115–129.Google Scholar
  3. Boyce, M. A., Lindsay, D. S., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2008). Investigating investigators: Examining the impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 439–453.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, N., Caon, A., Todd, C., & Weber, N. (2006). Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency. Law & Human Behavior, 30, 31–50.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, E., Deffenbacher, K., & Sturgill, W. (1977). Memory for faces and the circumstances of encounter. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 311–318.Google Scholar
  7. Calandra, D., & Carey, J. E. (2006). Field guide for the California peace officers legal sourcebook. Sacramento: California District Attorneys Association.Google Scholar
  8. Carlson, C., Gronlund, S. D., & Clark, S. E. (2008). Lineup composition, suspect position, and the sequential lineup advantage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 118–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Challis, B. H., & Roediger, H. L., III (1993). The effect of proportion overlap and repeated testing on primed word fragment completion. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 113–123.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Chan, J. C. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). The testing effect in recognition memory: A dual process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 431–437.Google Scholar
  11. Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 4, 739–755.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, S. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629–654.Google Scholar
  13. Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 395–424.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, S. E., & Davey, S. L. (2005). The target-to-foils shift in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 151–172.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, S. E., & Gronlund, S. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 37–60.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, S. E., Howell, R. T., & Davey, S. L. (2008). Regularities in eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 187–218.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, S. E., & Tunnicliff, J. L. (2001). Selecting lineup foils in eyewitness identification experiments: Experimental control and realworld simulation. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 199–216.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, S. E., & Wells, G. L. (2008). On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 406–422.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Conn, V. S., Valentine, J. C., Cooper, H. M., & Rantz, M. J. (2003). Grey literature in meta-analyses. Nursing Research, 52, 256–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3–9.Google Scholar
  22. Criss, A. H. (2006). The consequences of differentiation in episodic memory: Similarity and the strength based mirror effect. Journal of Memory & Language, 55, 461–478.Google Scholar
  23. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.Google Scholar
  24. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law & Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.Google Scholar
  26. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987a). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Putting context into context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 629–637.Google Scholar
  27. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987b). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law & Human Behavior, 11, 233–258.Google Scholar
  28. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O’Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behaviour, 1, 113–134.Google Scholar
  29. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law & Human Behavior, 30, 287–307.Google Scholar
  30. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law & Human Behavior, 6, 15–30.Google Scholar
  31. Dekle, D. J. (1997). Testing delays resulting in increased identification accuracy in line-ups and show-ups. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 25, 35–49.Google Scholar
  32. Dekle, D. J., Beal, C. R., Elliot, R., Huneycutt, D. (1996). Children as witnesses: A comparison of lineup versus showup identification methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 1–12.Google Scholar
  33. Devenport, J. L., & Fisher, R. P. (1997). The effects of authority and social influence on eyewitness suggestibility and person recognition. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 11, 35–40.Google Scholar
  34. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042–1054.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospreads and eyewitnesses’ awareness on the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991–1007.Google Scholar
  36. Dysart, J. E., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2007). Show-up identifications: Suggestive technique or reliable method? In R. C. L. Lindsay, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol II. Memory for people (pp. 361–376). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1996). Eyewitness memory research: Probative versus prejudicial value. Expert Evidence, 5, 2–28.Google Scholar
  38. Estes, W. K. (1997). Processes of memory loss, recovery, and distortion. Psychological Review, 104, 148–169.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Federal Rules of Evidence (2004). Committee on the Judiciary, 108th Congress, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  40. Ferkenhoff, E. (2002, July 9). Man held mistakenly is dropped as suspect. Chicago Tribune, p. 3.Google Scholar
  41. Fleet, M. L., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). The confidence-accuracy relationship: The effects of confidence assessment and choosing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 171–187.Google Scholar
  42. Flowe, H. D., & Ebbesen, E. B. (2007). The effect of lineup member similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 31, 33–52.Google Scholar
  43. Foster, R. A., Libkuman, T. M., Schooler, J. W., & Loftus, E. W. (1994). Consequentiality and eyewitness person identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 107–121.Google Scholar
  44. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 11, 8–20.Google Scholar
  45. Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1990). The mirror effect in recognition memory: Data and theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 1, 5–16.Google Scholar
  46. Gonzalez, R., Ellsworth, P. C., & Pembroke, M. (1993). Response biases in lineups and showups. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 64, 525–537.Google Scholar
  47. Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (in press). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law & Human Behavior.Google Scholar
  48. Gronlund, S. D. (2005). Sequential lineup advantage: Contributions of distinctiveness and recollection. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 23–37.Google Scholar
  49. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patil, S. (2005). Exonerations in the United States 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95, 523–560.Google Scholar
  50. Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106–1112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Innocence Project. Available at www.innocenceproject.org.Google Scholar
  52. Juslin, P., Olsson, N., & Winman, A. (1996). Calibration and diagnosticity of confidence in eyewitness identification: Comments on what can be inferred from the low confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1304–1316.Google Scholar
  53. Kassin, S. M., & Barndollar, K. A. (1992). The psychology of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of experts and prospective jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1241–1249.Google Scholar
  54. Kneller, W., Memon, A., & Stevenage, S. (2001). Simultaneous and sequential lineups: Decision processes of accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 659–671.Google Scholar
  55. Krafka, C., & Penrod, S. (1985). Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 49, 58–69.Google Scholar
  56. Laughery, R. L., Fessler, P. K., Lenorovitz, D. R., & Yoblick, D. A. (1974). Time delay and similarity effects in facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 490–496.Google Scholar
  57. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741–745.Google Scholar
  58. Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., Nosworthy, G. J., Fulford, J. A., Hector, J., LeVan, V., & Seabrook, C. (1991). Biased lineups: Sequential presentation reduces the problem. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 796–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Lindsay, R. C. L., Martin, R., & Webber, L. (1994). Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategy. Law & Human Behavior, 18, 527–541.Google Scholar
  60. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Pozzulo, J. D. (1999). Sources of eyewitness identification error. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 22, 347–360.Google Scholar
  61. Lindsay, R. C. L., Pozzulo, J. D., Craig, W., Lee, K., & Corber, S. (1997). Simultaneous lineups, sequential lineups, and showups: Eyewitness identification decisions of adults and children. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 391–404.Google Scholar
  62. Lindsay, R. C. L., Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., Toglia, M. P. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. II. Memory for people. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  63. Lindsay, R. C. L., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 463–478.Google Scholar
  64. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship of lineup fairness to identification accuracy. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 303–313.Google Scholar
  65. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564.Google Scholar
  66. Loftus, E. F. (1979) Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12, 361–366.Google Scholar
  68. Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 4, 19–31.Google Scholar
  69. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.Google Scholar
  70. MacLin, O. H., Meissner, C. A., & Zimmerman, L. A. (2005). PC_ Eyewitness: A computerized framework for the administration and practical application of research in eyewitness psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 324–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Malpass, R. S. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 12, 394–418.Google Scholar
  72. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1980). Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law & Human Behavior, 4, 347–358.Google Scholar
  73. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.Google Scholar
  74. Mauldin, M. A., & Laughery, K. R. (1981). Composite production effects on subsequent facial recognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 351–357.Google Scholar
  75. McClelland, J. L., & Chappell, M. (1998). Familiarity breeds differentiation: A subjective-likelihood model approach to the effects of experience in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 105, 724–760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.Google Scholar
  77. Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 3–35.Google Scholar
  78. Meissner, C. A., Tredoux, C. G., Parker, J. F., & MacLin, O. H. (2005). Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysis. Memory & Cognition, 33, 783–792.Google Scholar
  79. Melara, R. D., DeWitt-Rickards, T. S., & O’Brien, T. P. (1989). Enhancing lineup identification accuracy: Two codes are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 706–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effects of age on face, delay, and source-memory ability. Journals of Gerontology, 58B, P338-P345.Google Scholar
  81. Memon, A., & Gabbert, F. (2003). Unravelling the effects of sequential presentation in culprit-present lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 703–714.Google Scholar
  82. Memon, A., Hope, L., & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Morgan, C. A., Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., et al. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 3, 265–279.Google Scholar
  84. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. New York: McClure.Google Scholar
  85. National Institute of Justice (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  86. Navon, D. (1992). Selection of lineup foils by similarity to the suspect is likely to misfire. Law & Human Behavior, 16, 575–593.Google Scholar
  87. Nelson, J. D. (2005). Finding useful questions: On Bayesian diagnosticity, probability, impact, and information gain. Psychological Review, 112, 979–999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Nettles, W., Nettles, Z., & Wells, G. L. (1996, November). “I noticed you paused on number three”: Biased testing in eyewitness identification. Champion, pp. 10–12, 57–58.Google Scholar
  89. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.Google Scholar
  90. Nosofsky, R. M. (1992). Exemplar-based approach to relating categorization, identification, and recognition. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 363–393). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  91. Nosworthy, G. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1990). Does nominal lineup size matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 358–361.Google Scholar
  92. O’Rourke, T. E., Penrod, S. D., Cutler, B. L., & Stuve, T. E. (1989). The external validity of eyewitness identification research: Generalizing across subject populations. Law & Human Behavior, 13, 385–395.Google Scholar
  93. Paley, B., & Geiselman, R. E. (1989). The effects of alternative photospread instructions on suspect identification performance. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 7, 3–13.Google Scholar
  94. Parker, J. F., & Ryan, V. (1993). An attempt to reduce guessing behavior in children’s and adults’ eyewitness identifications. Law & Human Behavior, 17, 11–26.Google Scholar
  95. Payne, D. G., & Roediger, H. L., III (1987). Hypermnesia occurs in recall but not in recognition. American Journal of Psychology, 100, 145–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A meta-analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 549–570.Google Scholar
  97. Pozzulo, J. D., & Marciniak, S. (2006). Comparing identification procedures when the perpetrator has changed appearance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 429–438.Google Scholar
  98. Read, J. D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes misleading consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 91–121.Google Scholar
  99. Read, J. D., Hammersley, R., Cross-Calvert, S., & McFadzen, E. (1989). Rehearsal of faces and details in action events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 295–311.Google Scholar
  100. Rose, R. A., Bull, R., Vrij, A. (2005). Non-biased lineup instructions do matter: A problem for older witnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 147–159.Google Scholar
  101. Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 839–849.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. Rumain, B., Connell, J., & Braine, M. D. S. (1983). Conversational comprehension processes are responsible for reasoning fallacies in children as well as adults: If is not the biconditional. Developmental Psychology, 19, 471–481.Google Scholar
  103. Schacter, D. L., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., III, & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Policy forum: Studying eyewitness identifications in the field. Law & Human Behavior, 32, 3–5.Google Scholar
  104. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  105. Schmechel, R. S., O’Toole, T. P., Easterly, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Beyond the ken? Testing jurors’ understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence. Jurimetrics, 46, 177–214.Google Scholar
  106. Schum, D. A., & Martin, A. W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. Law & Society Review, 17, 105–152.Google Scholar
  107. Shepherd, J. W., Ellis, H., & Davies, G. (1982). Identification evidence: A psychological evaluation. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM-retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4,145–166.Google Scholar
  109. Singer, M., & Wixted, J. T. (2006). Effect of delay on recognition decisions: Evidence for a criterion shift. Memory & Cognition, 34, 125–137.Google Scholar
  110. Smith, S. M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Pryke, S., & Dysart, J. E. (2001). Postdictors of eyewitness errors: Can false identifications be diagnosed in the cross-race situation? Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 153–169.Google Scholar
  111. Sporer, S. L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 22–33.Google Scholar
  112. Steblay, N. M. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A metaanalytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 283–297.Google Scholar
  113. Steblay, N. [M.], Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 459–473.Google Scholar
  114. Steblay, N. [M.], Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law & Human Behavior, 27, 523–540.Google Scholar
  115. Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1379–1396.Google Scholar
  116. Tunnicliff, J. L., & Clark, S. E. (2000). Selecting foils for identification lineups: Matching suspects or descriptions? Law & Human Behavior, 24, 231–258.Google Scholar
  117. Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.Google Scholar
  118. Wagenaar, W. A., & Veefkind, N. (1992). Comparison of one-person and many-person lineups: A warning against unsafe practices. In F. Losel, D. Bendre, & T. Bliesner (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 275–285). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  119. Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 135–151) Harmondsworth, U.K.: Penguin.Google Scholar
  120. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness testimony research: System variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.Google Scholar
  121. Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.Google Scholar
  122. Wells, G. L. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publications.Google Scholar
  123. Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Wells, G. L., & Loftus, E. F. (2003). Eyewitness memory for people and events. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology: Forensic psychology (pp. 149–160). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  125. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–958.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75.Google Scholar
  127. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 155–167.Google Scholar
  128. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2003). Eyewitness testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 277–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. Wells, G. L., Rydell, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 835–844.Google Scholar
  130. 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 & Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.Google Scholar
  131. Wilcock, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2005). Aiding the performance of older eyewitnesses: Enhanced non-biased line-up instructions and line-up presentation. Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 12, 129–140.Google Scholar
  132. Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of US police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 69–82.Google Scholar
  133. Yarmey, A. D. (2004). Eyewitness recall and photo identification: A field experiment. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10, 53–68.Google Scholar
  134. Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, M. J., & Yarmey, A. L. (1996). Accuracy of eyewitness identification in showups and lineups. Law & Human Behavior, 20, 459–477.Google Scholar
  135. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory to a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. Yuille, J. C., & Tollestrup, P. A. (1992). A model of the diverse effects of emotion on eyewitness memory. In S. Christianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and theory (pp. 201–215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentUniversity of CaliforniaRiverside

Personalised recommendations