Instruction Bias and Lineup Presentation Moderate the Effects of Administrator Knowledge on Eyewitness Identification
Tóm tắt
Pairs (N = 234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness’s propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Buckhout, R. (1975). Reliability checklist for corporeal lineups. Social Action and the Law, 2, 1–8.
Charman, S. D., & Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness lineups: Is the appearance-change instruction a good idea? Law and Human Behavior, 31, 3–22.
Clark, S. E. (2005). A re-examination of the effects of biased lineup instructions in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 575–604.
Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwan, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Alexandria, CA: National Institute of Justice.
Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1988). Improving the reliability of eyewitness identification: Lineup construction and presentation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 281–290.
Douglass, A. B., Smith, C., & Fraser-Thill, D. (2005). A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness’s confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 543–562.
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.
Fanselow, M. S., & Buckhout, R. F. (1976). Nonverbal cueing as a source of biasing information in eyewitness identification testing. Center for Responsive Psychology Monograph No. CR-26. New York: Brooklyn College C.U.N.Y.
Flowe, H. D., & Ebbesen, E. B. (2007). The effect of lineup similarity on recognition accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 33–52.
Haw, R. M., & Fisher, R. P. (2004). Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1106–1112.
Haw, R. M., Mitchell, T. L, & Wells, G. L. (2003, July). The influence of lineup administrator knowledge and witness perceptions on eyewitness identification decisions. Poster presented at the International Congress of Psychology and Law, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Klayman, J., & Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211–228.
Koehnken, G., Malpass, R. S., & Wogalter, M. S. (1996). Forensic applications of line-up research. In S. L. Sporer, R. S. Malpass, & G. Koehnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identification (pp. 205–231). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Lea, J. A., & Fulford, J. A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 741–745.
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.
Lindsay, R. C. L., Wallbridge, H., & Drennan, D. (1987). Do clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19, 463–478.
Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1980). What price justice? Exploring the relationship between lineup fairness and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 303–314.
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.
Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1991). Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 43–57.
Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981a). Eyewitness identification: Lineup instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482–489.
Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1981b). Realism and eyewitness identification research. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 347–358.
Mecklenburg, S. H., Bailey, P. J., & Larson, M. R. (2008). The Illinois Field Study: A significant contribution to understanding real world eyewitness identification issues. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 22–27.
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 and Cognition, 33, 783–792.
Penrod, S. D. (2003). How well are witnesses and police performing? Criminal Justice Magazine, 54, 36–47.
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.
Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Irvington Publishers.
Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 839–849.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Russano, M. B., Dickinson, J. J., Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2006). Why don’t you take another look at number three: Investigator knowledge and its effects on eyewitness confidence and identification decisions. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 4, 355–379.
Schacter, D. L., Dawes, R., Jacoby, L. L., Kahneman, D., Lempert, R., Roediger, H. L., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Studying eyewitness investigations in the field. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 3–5.
Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 247–305). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Steblay, N. (1997). Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283–298.
Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2001). Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473.
Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement (NCJ 178240). National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Tredoux, C. G. (1998). Statistical inference on measures of lineup fairness. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 217–237.
Wells, G. (1988). Eyewitness identification: A system handbook. Toronto, Canada: Carswell.
Wells, G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1980). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness non-identifications. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 776–784.
Wells, G. L., & Luus, C. A. E. (1990). Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 106–117.
Wells, G. L., & Seelau, E. P. (1995). Eyewitness identification: Psychological research and legal policy on lineups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 1, 765–791.
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, 1–39.