Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions
Page 54
ommended by research scientists play out in fi eld settings. Arguments about
such matters as blind and sequential presentation methods will likely shift from
a consideration of what impact these procedures have on witness and system
performance to policy questions concerning the precise manner in which pro-
cedures should be deployed.
References
Behrman , B. W. & Davey , S. L. ( 2001 ). Eyewitness identifi cation in actual criminal
cases: An archival analysis . Law and Human Behavior , 25 , 475 – 491 .
280
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Behrman , B. W. & Richards , R. E. ( 2005 ). Suspect/foil identifi cation in actual crimes
and in the laboratory: A reality monitoring analysis . Law and Human Behavior ,
29 , 279 – 301 .
Borchard , E. M. & Lutz , E. R. ( 1932 ). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal
justice . New Haven, CT : Yale University Press .
Bradfi eld , A. L. , Wells , G. L. & Olson , E. A. ( 2002 ). The damaging effect of confi rm-
ing feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identifi cation
accuracy . Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 , 112 – 120 .
Brandon , R. & Davies , C. ( 1973 ). Wrongful imprisonment . London : Allen & Unwin .
Brigham , J. C. , Maas , A. , Snyder , L. D. & Spaulding , K. ( 1982 ). Accuracy of eyewit-
ness identifi cations in a fi eld setting . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,
42 , 673 – 681 .
Brigham , J. C. , Meissner , C. A. & Wasserman , A. W. ( 1999 ). Applied issues in the
construction and expert assessment of photo line - ups . Applied Cognitive Psychology ,
13 , S 73 – S 92 .
Charman , S. D. & Wells , G. L. ( 2007 ). Eyewitness line - ups: 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 line - up instructions in
eyewitness identifi cation . Law and Human Behavior , 29 , 575 – 604 .
Clark , S. E. & Wells , G. L. ( 2008 ). On the diagnosticity of multiple - witness identifi ca-
tions. Law and Human Behavior , 32 , 406 – 422 .
Cutler , B. L. & Penrod , S. D. ( 1995 ). Mistaken identifi cation: The eyewitness, psychology,
and the law . New York : Cambridge University Press .
Darling , S. , Valentine , T. & Memon , A. ( 2008 ). Selection of line - up foils in operational
contexts . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 22 , 159 – 169 .
Doob , A. N. & Kirshenbaum , H. M. ( 1973 ). Bias in police line - ups ± partial remem-
bering . Journal of Police Science and Administration , 1 , 287 – 293 .
Douglass , A. B. & Steblay , N. ( 2006 ). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta -
analysis of the post - identifi cation feedback effect . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 20 ,
859 – 869 .
Douglass , A. B. , Smith , C. & Fraser - Thill , D. ( 2005 ). A problem with double - blind
photospread procedures: Photospread administrators use one eyewitness ’ s confi -
dence to infl uence the identifi cation of another eyewitness . Law and Human
Behavior , 29 , 543 – 562 .
Ebbesen , E. E. & Flowe , H. D. ( 2001 ). Simultaneous v. sequential line - ups: What do
we really know? Unpublished manuscript. http://www-psy.ucsd.edu/ ∼ eebbesen/
SimSeq.htm . Accessed 6 June 2008.
Flowe , H. D. & Ebbesen , E. B. ( 2007 ). Effect of line - up similarity on recognition
accuracy in simultaneous and sequential line - ups . Law and Human Behavior , 31 ,
33 – 52 .
Frank , J. & Frank , B. ( 1957 ). Not guilty . London : Gollancz .
Garrett , B. ( 2008 ). Judging innocence . Columbia. Law Review . 108 , 55 – 142 .
Greathouse , S. M. & Kovera , M. B. ( 2009 ). Instruction bias and lineup presentation
moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identifi cation . Law
and Human Behavior , 33 , 70 – 82 .
Gronlund , S. D. ( 2004 ). Sequential line - ups: Shift in decision criterion or decision
strategy? Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 362 – 368 .
Gross ,
S. R.
,
Jacoby ,
K. ,
Matheson ,
D. J.
,
Montgomery ,
N. & Patil ,
S. (
2005 ).
Exonerations in the United States from 1989 through 2003 . Journal of Criminal
Law and Criminology , 95 , 523 – 560 .
Recent Developments in Identifi cation Science and Practice
281
Haber , R. N. & Haber , L. ( 2001 ). A meta - analysis of 250 research studies of the accuracy
of line
- up identifi cations made by eyewitnesses . Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Psychonomics Society, Orlando, FL, November.
Haw , R. M. & Fisher , R. P. ( 2004 ). Effects of administrator - witness contact on eye-
witness identifi cation accuracy . Journal of Applied Psychology , 89 , 1106 – 1112 .
Haw , R. M. , Mitchell , T. L. & Wells , G. L. ( 2003 ). The infl uence of line - up admini-
strator knowledge and witness perceptions on eyewitness identifi cation decisions .
Poster presented at the International Congress of Psychology and Law, Edinburgh,
July.
Huff , R. , Rattner , A. & Sagarin , E. ( 1986 ). Guilty until proven innocent . Crime and
Delinquency , 32 ( 4 ), 518 – 544 .
Klobuchar ,
A. ,
Steblay ,
N. & Caligiuri ,
H. L.
(
2006 ).
Symposium: Reforming
eyewitness identifi
cation: Convicting the guilty, protecting the innocent:
Improving eyewitnesses identifi cations: Hennepin county
’ s blind sequential
line - up pilot project
.
Cardozo Public Law, Policy
& Ethics Journal ,
4 ,
381 –
413 .
Krafka ,
C. & Penrod ,
S. (
1985 ).
Reinstatement of context in a fi eld experiment
on eyewitness identifi cation .
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,
49 ,
58 – 69 .
Lindsay , R. C. L. & Wells , G. L. ( 1980 ). What price justice? Exploring the relationship
between line - up fairness and identifi cation accuracy . Law and Human Behavior ,
4 , 303 – 314 .
Lindsay , R. C. L. & Wells , G. L. ( 1985 ). Improving eyewitness identifi cations from
line - ups: Simultaneous versus sequential line - up presentation . Journal of Applied
Psychology , 70 , 556 – 564 .
Lindsay , R. C. L. , Lea , J. A. & Fulford , J. A. ( 1991 ). Sequential line - up presentation:
Technique matters . Journal of Applied Psychology , 76 , 741 – 745 .
Luus , C. A. E. & Wells , G. L. ( 1991 ). Eyewitness identifi cation and the selection of
distractors for line - ups . Law and Human Behavior , 15 , 43 – 57 .
Luus , C. A. E. & Wells , G. L. ( 1994 ). The malleability of eyewitness confi dence: Co -
witness and perseverance effects . Journal of Applied Psychology , 79 , 714 – 723 .
Malpass , R. S. , Tredoux , C. G. & McQuiston - Surrett , D. ( 2007 ). Line - up construction
and fairness . In R. C. Lindsay , D. F. Ross , J. D. Read & M. P. Tog
lia (Eds.), The
handbook of eyewitness psychology. Volume II, Memory for people (pp. 155 – 178 ).
Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum .
McAllister ,
H. A.
& Bregman ,
N. J.
(
1986 ).
Juror underutilization of eyewitness
nonidentifi cations: Theoretical and practical implications
.
Journal of Applied
Psychology , 71 ( 1 ), 186 – 170 .
McQuiston - Surrett , D. , Malpass , R. S. & Tredoux , C. G. ( 2006 ). Sequential vs. simul-
taneous line - ups: A review of methods, data, and theory . Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law , 12 , 137 – 169 .
Mecklenburg , S. H. ( 2006 ). Report to the legislature of the state of Illinois: The
Illinois pilot program on double - blind, sequential line - up procedures. http://
www.chicagopolice.org/IL%20Pilot%20on%20Eyewitness%20ID.pdf . Accessed 6
June 2008.
Meissner , C. A. , Tredoux , C. G. , Parker , J. F. & MacLin , O. H. ( 2005 ). Eyewitness
decisions in simultaneous and sequential line - ups: A dual - process signal detection
theory analysis . Memory and Cognition , 33 , 783 – 792 .
Penrod , S. ( 2003 ). Eyewitness identifi cation evidence: How well are witnesses and
police performing? Criminal Justice , Spring, 36 – 47 , 54.
282
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
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 .
Pigott , M. A. , Brigham , J. C. & Bothwell , R. K. ( 1990 ). A fi eld study on the relation-
ship between quality of eyewitnesses
’ descriptions and identifi cation accuracy .
Journal of Police Science and Administration , 17 , 84 – 88 .
Pike , G. , Brace , N. & Kynan , S. ( 2002 ). The visual identifi cation of suspects: Procedures
and practice . Briefi
ng Note No. 2/02. London: Home Offi ce Research
Development and Statistics Directorate, March.
Platz , S. J. & Hosch , H. M. ( 1988 ). Cross - racial ethnic eyewitness identifi cation: A
fi eld study . Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 18 , 972 – 984 .
Procedure for line - up identifi cation ( 1967 ). American Criminal Law Quarterly , 6 ,
93 – 95 .
Py , J. , DeMarchi , S , Ginet , M. & Wasiak , L. ( 2003 ). ‘ Who is the suspect? ’ A comple-
mentary instruction to the standard mock witness paradigm . Paper presented at the
American Psychology - Law Society and European Association of Psychology and
Law Conference, Edinburgh.
Rattner , A. ( 1988 ). Convicted but innocent . Law and Human Behavior , 12 , 283 –
294 .
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 .
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 confi dence and identifi cation 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 ). Policy forum: Studying eyewitness investigations
in the fi eld . Law and Human Behavior , 32 , 3 – 5 .
Scheck , B. , Neufeld , P. & Dwyer , W. ( 2000 ). Actual innocence . New York : Harper .
Semmler , C. , Brewer , N. & Wells , G. L. ( 2004 ). Effects of postidentifi cation feedback
on eyewitness identifi cation and nonidentifi cation confi dence . Journal of Applied
Psychology , 89 , 334 – 346 .
Slater ,
A. (
1994 ).
Identifi cation parades: A scientifi c evaluation .
London :
Police
Research Group, Home Offi ce .
Steblay , N. M. ( 1997 ). Social infl uence in eyewitness recall: A meta - analytic review of
line - up instruction effects . Law and Human Behavior , 21 , 283 – 297 .
Steblay , N. & Dysart , J. ( 2008a ). Seventy tests of the sequential superiority effect: A
meta - analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Steblay , N. & Dysart , J. ( 2008b ). Personal communication, 27 April.
Steblay , N. , Dysart , J. , Fulero , S. & Lindsay , R. C. L. ( 2001 ). Eyewitness accuracy
rates in sequential and simultaneous line - up presentations: A meta - analytic com-
parison . 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, US
Department of Justice.
Tollestrup , P. , Turtle , J. & Yuille , J. ( 1994 ). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery
and fraud: An archival analysis . In D. F. Ross , J. D. Read & M. P. Toglia (Eds.),
Recent Developments in Identifi cation Science and Practice
283
Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 144 – 160 ). New
York : Cambridge University Press .
Tredoux , C. G. ( 1998 ). Statistical inference on measures of line - up fairness . Law and
Human Behavior , 22 , 217 – 237 .
Tunnicliff , J. L. & Clark , S. ( 2000 ). Foils for identifi cation line - ups: Matching suspects
or descriptions? Law and Human Behavior , 24 , 231 – 258 .
Valentine , T. & Heaton , P. ( 1999 ). An evaluation of the fairness of police line - ups
and video identifi cations . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 13 , S 59 – S 72 .
Valentine , T. , Pickering , A. & Darling , S. ( 2003 ). Characteristics of eyewitness iden-
tifi cation that predict the outcome of real line - ups . Applied Cognitive Psychology ,
17 , 969 – 993 .
Wells , G. L. & Bradfi eld , A. L. ( 1998 ). ‘ Good, you identifi ed the suspect ’ : Feedback
to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience
.
Journal of
Applied Psychology , 83 , 360 – 376 .
Wells , G. L. & Bradfi eld , A. L. ( 1999 ). Measuring the goodness of line - ups: Parameter
estimation, question effects, and limits to the mock witness paradigm . Applied
Cognitive Psychology , 13 , S 27 – S 39 .
Wells , G. L. & Lindsay , R. C. L. ( 1980 ). On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness
nonidentifi cations . Psychological Bulletin , 88 , 776 – 784 .
Wells , G. L. , Leippe , M. R. & Ostrom , T. M. ( 1979 ). Guidelines for empirically
assessing the fairness of a line
- up .
Law and Human Behavior ,
3 ,
285 –
293 .
Wells , G. L. , Rydell , S. M. & Seelau , E. P. ( 1993 ). The selection of distractors for
eyewitness line - ups . Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 834 – 844 .
Wells , G. L. , Small , M. , Penrod , S. , Malpass , R. S. , Fulero , S. M. & Brimacombe ,
C. A. E.
(
1998 ).
Eyewitness identifi cation procedur
es: Recommendations for
line - ups and photospreads . Law and Human Behavior , 22 , 1 – 39 .
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 – 598 .
Wells , G. L. , Olson , E. A. & Charman , S. D. ( 2003 ). Distorted retrospective eyewit-
ness reports as functions of feedback and delay . Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied , 9 , 42 – 52 .
Whipple , G. M. ( 1909 ). The observer as reporter: A survey of the ‘ psychology of
testimony ’ . Psychological Bulletin , 6 , 153 – 170 .
Wright , D. B. & McDaid , A. T. ( 1996 ). Comparing system and estimator variables
using data from real line - ups . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 10 , 75 – 84 .
Wright , D. B. & Skagerberg , E. M. ( 2007 ). Post - identifi cation feedback affects real
eyewitnesses . Psychological Science , 18 , 172 – 178 .
Case
Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 509 U.S. 579 ( 1993 ).
Chapter Sixteen
Truthfulness in Witnesses ’ and
Suspects ’ Reports
A. Daniel Yarmey
University of Guelph
Ontario
Although errors of omission and commission typically occur in eyewitness
memory, it is often assumed by psycho - legal researchers that mistakes in eye-
witness memory are honest errors that occur as a function of misperception,
interference, retrieval failures, and so forth. In contrast, police often interview
witnesses and suspects who are uncooperative and may, in fact, intentionally
fabricate their testimony. Deception may be defi ned as ‘ a successful or unsuc-
cessful deliberate attempt, without forewarning, to create in another a belief
that the communicator considers to be untrue ’ (Vrij, 2000 : 6). Although there
has been substantial interest in the investigation of verbal and nonverbal cor-
relates of deception (e.g., Vrij, 2000 ; Watkins & Turtle, 2003 ), and in deter-
mining the abilities of laypersons, police offi cers and psychologists to detect
deception (e.g., K ö hnken, 1987 ; Ekman, 2001 ), research on deception in an
eyewitness memory paradigm is limited. Relatively little is known regarding
the distortions that occur in eyewitness descriptions and identifi cation as a
function of witness deception.
The purpose of this chapter is to describe some recent studies from our