Unconscious
Transference
Dwight J. Peterson
Eyewitness Identification Seminar
University of Northern Iowa
Unconscious Transference
 Definition:

Identifying a innocent foil, who is familiar from
some context, instead of the actual
perpetrator
 Different
from identifying any old foil face
from the lineup?

Unfortunately, yes, this phenomenon presents
yet another problem with eyewitness ID’s
Transference Effect
Joe
I
see Joe steal a car
 Police show up
 I am the witness to the crime
Tom
 Cops have no one in custody
 I see Tom while flipping through a mugshot
book at the police station
 Later on, I’m given the following lineup:
Transference Effect
 What
happens if I pick number 4?
 What happens if number 4 (Tom) has two
priors for grand theft auto?
History

Glanville Williams (1955)


Houts (1956)


The sailor and the ticket agent
Elizabeth Loftus (1976)



Coined the term
Pioneer study of the UT effect
TA lineup: 60% chose previously viewed “bystander”
Thompson (1988)

Rape victim confusion related to source of familiarity
Associated Problems
 Mugshot


Different context, but familiarity remains
Lineups after mugshots = increased
probability for misidentification
 Innocent

books
bystanders
Same context, retrieve and identify innocent
face from lineup
Theories
 Source

monitoring errors
Distinguishing between memory sources
 Automatic

Implicit Memory
 Infer

processing
identity at encoding or retrieval
“Conscious Inference”
• Read et al., (1990)
Source Monitoring

External


Based on sensory experience and subsequent
perception
Internal

Based on thoughts, feelings

Easier to distinguish between one internal and
one external memory
 Reality Monitoring: Harder to distinguish
between two external (or two internal) memories

Lindsay & Johnson (1989)
Automatic Processes
 Remembering
old non-famous names as
famous

Jacoby, Kelly, Brown, & Jasechko (1989)
 Familiarity

without recognition
Jacoby, Woloshyn, & Kelley (1989)
 Automatic
processing of faces may lead to
familiarity without conscious attention to
features necessary for differentiation
Conscious Inference
 Retrieval


Bystander does not come into play until the
lineup is presented
Read et al., (1990)
 Encoding

Ross et al., (1994)
 Erroneously
thinking the bystander is the
assailant while encoding the crime, and
later thinking they are one in the same
Differentiating Between Bystander
and Perpetrator
 One



in the same?
TA-lineups increase transference
Lineups with BOTH the bystander and
perpetrator cause a different type of trouble
for transference participants
Awareness that the two are DIFFERENT
decreases transference
• Ross et al., (1994) (Experiment 2)
• Phillips, Geiselman, Haghighi, & Lin (1997)
Evidence for Unconscious
Transference

Loftus (1976)
 Read et al., (1990); Experiment 5


View conscious inference as occuring at retrieval
Ross et al., (1994); Experiments 1, 2, 3, 4



Evidence for conscious inference at encoding
Experiments 3 & 4 manipulated encoding
Found conscious inference was made soon after
viewing the portion of video displaying the crime
Meta-analysis
 Deffenbacher,




Bornstein, & Penrod (2006)
Mainly a review of problems with mugshots
Commitment effects
Retroactive Interference
Unconscious Transference
• Effect size twice as large for studies looking at the
mugshot exposure compared to studies looking at
exposure to an innocent bystander
Memory and Mugshot Books
 Commitment

effects pose a problem
Dysart, Lindsay, Hammond, & Dupuis (2001)
• Found greater inaccuracy rates for commitment
group (Experiment 2)
• No difference between control conditions and
transference conditions (Experiment 2)
Other Related Issues
 Older


participants
Higher misidentification rates for younger
facial stimuli
More errors related to identity confusion for
older participants
• Perfect & Harris (2003)
 Other-race

faces and context memory
More errors for which context (background) a
face was observed for African American faces
• Horry & Wright (2008)
A Recent Theory
 Unconscious
transference as a type of
change blindness?

Davis, Loftus, Vanous, & Cucciare, (2008)
 Illusions

of continuity
Levin & Simons (2000)
 Continuous
vs. Discontinuous Innocent
 Misidentification rates higher for the CI
What do you think?
 Is
the evidence for unconscious
transference compelling enough to attempt
policy suggestions or even worthy of
mention in court by expert witnesses?
 Does talking about this phenomenon
decrease the credibility of the expert
witness?

What about Kassin, et al’s (2001) position on
reliable evidence?
Thank You!
 Any
comments or constructive criticism
you may have regarding this presentation
would be greatly appreciated!
References











Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008). ‘Unconscious transference’ can be an instance of
‘change blindness.’ Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 605-623.
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive
interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference. Law and Human
Behavior, 30, 287-307.
Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., Hammond, R., & Dupuis, P. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup
identification: Interference, transference, and commitment effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 12801284.
Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, R., & Stown, Ronna (1996). Unconscious transference and characteristics of
accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 2, 197-209.
Horry, R., & Wright, D. B. (2008). I know your face but not where I saw you: Context memory is impaired for
other-race faces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 610-614.
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness
testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405-416.
Loftus, E. F. (1976). Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification. Law and Psychology Review, 2,
93-98.
Perfect, T. J., & Harris, L. J. (2003). Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or
identity blending? Memory & Cognition, 31, 570-580.
Phillips, M. R., Geiselman, R. E., Haghighi, D., & Lin, C. (1997). Some boundary conditions for bystander
misidentifications. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 370-390.
Read, D. J., Tollestrup, P., Hammersley, R., McFadzen, E., et al. (1990). The unconscious transference
effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 4, 3-31.
Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity:
When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918-930.