Post-identification Feedback to Eyewitnesses: Implications for System Variable Reform
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).
KeywordsPost-identification feedback Eyewitness decisions Confidence malleability Retrospective confidence
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Brooks, W. G. (2017). U.S. Identification Procedures. Eyewitness Identification Workshop, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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/10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 97 S.Ct. 2243, 53 L. Ed.2d 140 (1977).Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- New Jersey v. Henderson, 27 A. 3d 872 (2011).Google Scholar
- Oregon v. Classen 590 P.2d 1198. (1979). 285 Or. 221.Google Scholar
- Oregon v. Lawson, SC S059306 (2012).Google Scholar
- 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
- Perry v. New Hampshire. 565 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 716, 181 L. Ed. 2d 694 (2012).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Thompson-Cannino, J., Cotton, R., & Torneo, E. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed.2d 1149 (1967).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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