Since the 1990s, several landmark Court of Appeals decisions in New York and elsewhere (e.g.,
Legrand, Young, Abney, Santiago, Henderson, and Lawson) have allowed for expert testimony
concerning predictable patterns of errors associated with eyewitness ID evidence.
The following list of topics and references is meant to accompany the article, A Brief Guide to
Factors that Commonly Influence Identification and Memory For Criminal Events (New York
State Bar Association Journal, 2013). Each topic is limited here to a small number of references that
exemplify the broader findings in that field, with more relevant articles or best exemplifications
listed first. For a more complete set of references for any of these topic(s), or for a broader set of
factors that impact eyewitness memory accuracy, feel free to contact either of the authors (contact
information at the end of this document).
EXAMPLES OF POOR IDENTIFICATION PERFORMANCE FOR STRANGERS
Across a variety of circumstances in the lab:
Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
In real-world identification procedures:
1. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of
eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law
and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.
2. Tollestrup, P. A., Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Actual victims and witnesses to robbery
and fraud: An archival analysis. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read., & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult
eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
3. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An
archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475-491.
4. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real
eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.
For both memory and perceptual matching tests:
1. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, M. (2006). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two
heads are worse than one. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 957-972.
2. Papesh, M. H., & Goldinger, S. D. (2014). Infrequent identity matches are frequently
undetected. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76. 1335-1349.
Multiple-witness IDs of suspect in real-world DNA-exoneration cases:
U.S. Department of Justice (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in
the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, D. C.: National Institute
of Justice.
WEAPON FOCUS
Classic meta-analysis:
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human
Behavior, 16, 413-424.
Some specific studies showing lower Hits and increased False IDs:
1 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 and Human
Behavior, 13, 385-395.
2 DeCarlo, J., & Dysart, J. E. (2010, March). Weapon-focus effect: Are police and civilians
differentially affected? Paper presented at the American Psychology -Law Society Annual
Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
When weapons are only partly visible or are simply inferred:
1. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness
identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233258.
2. Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R. & Eugenio. P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness
memory: Attention must be paid. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 167-184.
STRESS
Classic meta-analysis:
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic
review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687706.
Real-world studies:
1. Morgan, C. A., III, Hazlett, G., Doran, A., Garrett, S., Hoyt, G., Thomas, P., Baranoski, M., &
Southwick, S. M. (2004). Accuracy of eyewitness memory for persons encountered during
exposure to highly intense stress. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 265-279.
2. Valentine, T., & Mesout, J. (2009). Eyewitness identification under stress in the London
Dungeon. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 151-161.
3. Morgan, C. A., III, Southwick, S., Steffian, G., Hazlett, G. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2013).
Misinformation can influence memory for recently experienced, highly stressful events.
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36, 11-17.
4. Buckhout, R., Alpern, A., Chern, S., Silverberg, G., & Slomovits, M. (1974). Determinants of
eyewitness performance on a lineup. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4, 191-192.
FLASHBULB MEMORY
1. Talarico, J. M., & Rubin, D. C. (2003). Confidence, not consistency, characterizes flashbulb
memories. Psychological Science, 14, 455-461.
2. Hirst, W., Phelps, E. A., Buckner, R. L., Budson, A. E., Cuc, A., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Johnson,
M. K., Lustig, C., Lyle, K. B., Mather, M., Meksin, R., Mitchell, K. J., Ochsner, K. N., Schacter,
D. L., Simons, J. S., 7 Vaidya, C. J (2009). Long-term memory for the terrorist attack of
September 11: Flashbulb memories, event memories, and the factors that influence their
retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 161-176.
3. Neisser, U., & Harsch, N. (1992). Phantom flashbulbs: False recollections of hearing the news
about the Challenger. In E. Winograd & U. Neisser (Eds.), Affect and accuracy in recall. New
York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 9-31.
4. Brown, ,R., & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition 5(1), 73-99.
5. Conway, A. R. A., Skitka, L. J., Hemmerich, J. A., & Kershaw, T. C. (2009). Flashbulb
memory for 11 September 2001. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 605-623.
CONFIDENCE-ACCURACY CORRELATION
Classic meta-analysis:
Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness
accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4),
691-695.
Negligible correlation under violent conditions:
1. Clifford, B. R.., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of
perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364-370.
2. 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(5), 459-473.
Poor correlation for real-world criminal witnesses:
Odinot, G., Wolters, G., & van Koppen, P. J. (2008). Eyewitness memory of a supermarket
robbery: A case study of accuracy and confidence after 3 months. Law and Human Behavior, 32.
CONFIDENCE MALLEABILITY(tendency for confidence to increase over time):
1. Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B. (2014). The eyewitness post identification
feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy implications. Psychology, Public Policy,
and the Law, 20(1), 1-18. (This is the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date, which includes
Wells & Bradfield, 1998, the original study.)
2. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to
eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 360-376.
From simple rehearsal of answers:
Wells, G. L.., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness
confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 688696.
In real-world criminal witnesses:
1. Garrett, B. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong.
Cambridge: Harvard. p.64
2. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real
eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.
Jurors’ strong weighting of witness confidence:
1. Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J. F., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does postidentification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures?
Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 282-294.
2. Wells., G. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L., & Ferguson, T. J. (1979). Accuracy, confidence, and juror
perceptions in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 440-448.
3. Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their
forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 817-845.
POST-EVENT INFORMATION/SUGGESTIBILITY EFFECTS
Social contagion from co-observers:
1. Roediger, H. L., Meade, M. L., & Bergman, E. T. (2001). Social contagion of memory.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(2), 365-371.
2. Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-Witness
and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714-723.
Prevalence with which co-witnesses confer:
Paterson, H. M., & Kemp, R. I. (2006). Co-witnesses talk. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12,
181-191.
Leading questions.
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of
the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
13, 585-589.
Creation of false personal memories.
1. Loftus, E. F., & Pickrell, J. E. (1995). The formation of false memories. Psychiatric Annals,
25, 720-725.
2. Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Read, J. D., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand
lies: Using false photographs to crease false childhood memories. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 9, 597-603.
3. Hyman, I. E., Husband, T. H., & Billings. F. J. (1995). False memories of childhood
experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 181-197.
4. Berkowitz, S. R., Laney, C., Morris, E., Garry, M., & Loftus, E. (2008). Pluto behaving badly:
False beliefs and their consequences. American Journal of Psychology, 121(4), 643-660.
SELF-SUGGESTION/INFERENCE
1. Kerstholt, J. H., Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Valeton, J. M. (1992). The effect of expectation on
the identification of known and unknown persons. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 173-180.
2. Wong, C. K., & Read, J. D. (2011). Positive and negative effects of physical context
reinstatement on eyewitness recall and identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2-11.
3. Gruppuso, V., Lindsay, D. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2007). I’d know that face anywhere!
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1085-1089.
4. Allport, G., & Postman, L. (1947). The psychology of rumor. New York, NY: Henry Holt &
Co.
5. Spaniol, J., & Bayen, U. J. (2002). When is schematic knowledge used in source monitoring?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 631-651.
6. Flowe, H. D. & Humphries, J. E. (2011). An examination of criminal face bias in a random
sample of police lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25: 265-273.
7. Knuycky, L. R., Kleider, H. M., & Cavrak, S. E. (2014). Line-up misidentifications: When
being ‘prototypically Black’ is perceived as criminal. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 39-46.
8. For voice: Foulkes, P., & Barron, A. (2000). Telephone speaker recognition amongst members
of a close social network. Forensic Linguistics, 7(2), 180-198.
THE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE
Tendency to choose, even when the correct person is absent:
In the lab:
Wells, G. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 14, 89-103.
In real-world ID procedures:
Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data
from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75-84.
The suggestiveness of show-ups and resulting increased false identifications:
1. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2003). Eyewitness accuracy rates in
police showup and lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior,
27(5), 523-540.
2. Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Gronlund , S. D., Wooten, A., Goodsell, C. A., & Carlson,
C. A. (2014). Effect of retention interval on showup and lineup performance. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition.
3. Smith, A. M., Bertrand, M., Lindsay, R. C. L., Kalmet, N., Grossman, D., & Provenzano, D.
(2014). The impact of multiple show-ups on eyewitness decision-making and innocence risk.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(3), 247-259.
Filler selection and dud effect:
1. Fitzgerald, R. J., Price, H. L., Oriet, C., & Charman, S. (2013). The effect of suspect-filler
similarity on eyewitness identification decisions: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 19(2), 151-164.
2. Charman, S. D., Wells, G. L. , & Joy, S. W. (2011). The dud effect: Adding highly dissimilar
fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications. Human Law and Behavior, 35, 479-500.
3. Windschitl, P. D., & Chambers, J. R. (2004). The dud-alternative effect in likelihood
judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 198215.
4. Wells, G. L, Rydell, S. M. & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness
lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 835-844.
5. Gonzalez, R., Davis, J., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1995). Who should stand next to the suspect?
Problems in the assessment of lineup fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 525-531.
Mismatch of lineup members to witness’s description:
Wells, G. L, Rydell, S. M. & Seelau, E. P. (1993). The selection of distractors for eyewitness
lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 835-844.
Standards for lineup fairness (in addition to above):
1. Doob, A. N. & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Bias in police lineups — partial remembering.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, 18, 287-293.
2. Malpass, R. S., & Devine, P. G. (1983). Measuring the fairness of eyewitness identification
lineups. In S. Lloyd-Bostock, & B. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating Witness Evidence. (pp. 81-102).
London: Wiley & Sons.
3. Brigham, J. C., Ready, D. J., & Spier, S. A. (1990). Standards for evaluating the fairness of
photograph lineups. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 149-163.
Unique characteristic of suspect’s photo (e.g., tilted or close-up):
Buckhout, R., Figueroa, D. L., & Hoff, E. (1975). Eyewitness identification: Effects of
suggestion and bias in identification from photographs. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 6,
71-74.
Suggestive instructions & comments (See also sections below for double-blind
administration and for post-ID feedback):
Steblay, N. (1997) Social influence in eyewitness recall: A meta-analytic review of lineup
instruction effects. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 283-297.
“Take your time.”: Clark, S. E., Marshall, T. E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator
influences on eyewitness identifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 6375.
“Choose someone”: Malpass, R.S., & Devine, P.G. (1981). Eyewitness identification: Lineup
instructions and the absence of the offender. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 482-489.
"Look carefully and determine which person was the thief": Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., &
Rauch, S. M. (2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: Influence of biased lineup
instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Law and
Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.
“Keep in mind that the culprit’s appearance may have changed”:
(1) Porter, D., Moss, A., Reisberg, D. (2014). The appearance-change instruction does not
improve line-up identification accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 151-160.
(2) Molinaro, P. F., Arndorfer, A., & Charman, S. D. (2013). Appearance-change instruction
effects on eyewitness lineup identification accuracy are not moderated by amount of appearance
change. Law and Human Behavior, 37(6), 432-440.
"Could that be him?" Clark, S. E., Marshall, T. E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup
administrator influences on eyewitness identifications. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 15, 63-75.
Recommendation to instruct witnesses that the perpetrator may not be present:
Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., & Rauch, S. M. (2009). Cueing confidence in eyewitness
identifications: Influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback
under varying lineup conditions. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 194-212.
Biases introduced when ID procedure is not double-blind (i.e., when administrator knows
who the suspect is) (See also sections on instructions and on feedback):
1. Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate
the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior,
33, 70-82.
2. Clark, S. E., Brower, G. L., Rosenthal, R., Hicks, J. M., & Moreland, M. B. (2013). Lineup
administrator influences on eyewitness identification and eyewitness confidence. Journal of
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 158-165.
3. Garrioch, L., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2001). Lineup administrators’ expectations: Their
impact on eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 25(3), 299-315.
4. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Post-ID feedback (See also immediately preceding section on double-blind administration):
1. Most comprehensive meta-analysis to date: Steblay, N. K., Wells, G. L., & Douglass, A. B.
(2014). The eyewitness post identification feedback effect 15 years later: Theoretical and policy
implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 20(1), 1-18.
2. 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.
3. Wells, G. L., & Bradfield, A. L. (1998). “Good, you identified the suspect”: Feedback to
eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. Journal of Applied Psychology,
83, 360-376.
Feedback effects with actual eyewitnesses to crimes:
1. Wright, D. B., & Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Postidentification feedback affects real
eyewitnesses. Psychological Science, 18, 172-178.
2. Wells, G. L., & Quinlivan, D. S. (2009). Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and
the Supreme Court’s reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later. Law and
Human Behavior, 33, 1-24.
Subtle feedback “Thank you. You have been a really great witness”:
Dysart, J. E., Lawson, V. Z., & Rainey, A. (2012). Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic
against the postidentification feedback effect. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 312-319.
And co-witnesses (See also section above on social contagion):
Luus, C. A. E., & Wells, G. L. (1994). The malleability of eyewitness confidence: Co-Witness
and perseverance effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 714-723.
And indirect effects on jurors:
1. Smalarsz, L., & Wells, G. L. (2014). Confirming feedback following a mistaken identification
impairs memory for the culprit. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 283-292.
2. Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J. F., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does postidentification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures?
Law and Human Behavior, 34(4), 282-294.
3. Maclean, C. L., Brimacombe, C. A. E., Allison, M., Dahl, L. C., & Kadlec, H. (2011). Postidentification feedback effects: Investigators and evaluators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25,
739-752.
Identification latency (How quickly the witness makes an ID decision):
Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10- to 12-second
rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 951-962.
EXPOSURE/FAMILIARITY EFFECTS:
Unconscious transference:
1. Classic Meta-analysis: 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.
2. Davis, D., Loftus, E. F., Vanous, S., & Cucciare, M. (2008). Unconscious transference can be
an instance of “change blindness”. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(5), 605-623.
3. Gruppuso, V., Lindsay, D. S., & Masson, M. E. J. (2007). I’d know that face anywhere!
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1085-1089.
Mugshot exposure:
1. 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.
2. Steblay, N. K., Dietrich, H. L., Ryan, S. L., Raczynski, J. J., James, K. A. (2011). Sequential
lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 262-274.
3. Steblay, N. K., Tix, R. W., & Benson, S. L. (2013). Double-exposure: The effects of repeated
identification lineups on eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 644-654.
4. Wong, C. K., & Read, J. D. (2011). Positive and negative effects of physical context
reinstatement on eyewitness recall and identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2-11.
Exposure effects for actual criminal lineups: Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D., & Milne, R.
(2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England, A field
study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265.
Commitment effect:
1. 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.
2. Dysart, J. E., Lindsay, R. C. L., & Hammond, R. (2001). Mugshot exposure prior to lineup
identification: Interference, transference, and commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
1280-1284.
3. Gorenstein, G. W., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1980). Effect of choosing an incorrect photograph on a
later identification by an eyewitness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 616-622.
CROSS-RACE ID
Classic meta-analysis: 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, and
Law, 7, 3-35.
During perception as well as from memory: Megreya, A. M., White, D., & Burton, M. (2011).
The other-race effect does not rely on memory: Evidence from a matching task. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(8), 1473-1483.
Some studies covering common perpetrator/witness race combinations:
1. Teitelbaum, S., & Geiselman, R. E. (1997). Observer mood and cross-racial recognition of
faces. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 93-106.
2. Gross, T. F. (2009). Own-ethnicity bias in the recognition of Black, East Asian, Hispanic, and
White faces. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 128-135.
3. Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field
study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972-984.
4. Wright, D. B., Boyd, C. E., & Tredoux, C. G. (2003). Inter-racial contact and the own-race
bias for face recognition in South Africa and England. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 365373.
Note: Several other studies address specific combinations of race of observer and race of target.
Contact us for findings on a particular combination of interest.
MULTIPLE PERPETRATORS
1. Megreya, A. M., & Burton, M. (2006). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two
heads are worse than one. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 957-972.
2. Clifford, B. R.., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of
perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364-370.
3. Bindemann, M., Sandford, A., Gillatt, K., Avetisyan, M., & Megreya, A. M. (2012).
Recognizing faces seen alone or with others: Why are two heads worse than one? Perception, 41,
415-435.
And real-world IDs:
1. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of
eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law
and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.
2. Fahsing, I. A., Ask, K., & Granhag, P. A. (2004). The man behind the mask: Accuracy and
predictors of eyewitness offender descriptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 722-729.
LIGHTING & SHADOW
1. Liu, C. H., Collin, C. .A., Burton, A. M., & Chaudhuri, A. (1999). Lighting direction affects
recognition of untextured faces in photographic positive and negative. Vision Research, 39,
4003-4009.
2. Loftus, G. R. (1985). Picture perception: Effects of luminance on available information and
information-extraction rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 342-356.
3. Braje, W. L., Kersten, D., Tarr, M. J., & Troje, N. F. (1998). Illumination effects in face
recognition. Psychobiology, 26, 371-380.
ANGLE OF EXPOSURE
1. Hill, H., & Bruce, V. (1996). Effects of lighting on the perception of facial surfaces. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 986-1004.
2. Thompson, P. (1980). Margaret Thatcher: A new illusion. Perception, 9, 483-484.
3. Hill, H., Schyns, P. G., & Akamatsu, S. (1997). Information and viewpoint dependence in face
recognition. Cognition, 62(2), 201-222.
DURATION OF EXPOSURE AND HOW WELL PEOPLE ESTIMATE DURATION
Impact of duration:
1. Memon, A., Hope, L, & Bull, R. (2003). Exposure duration: Effects on eyewitness accuracy
and confidence. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 339-354.
2. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
3. Read, J. D. (1995). The availability heuristic in person identification: The sometimes
misleading consequences of enhanced contextual information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9,
91-122.
Tendency to overestimate duration:
1. Loftus, E. F., Schooler, J. W. Boone, S. M., & Kline, D. (1987). Time went by so slowly:
Overestimation of event duration by males and females. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 3-13.
2. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness
identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233258.
3. Buckhout, R., Fox, P., & Rabinowitz, M. (1989). Estimating the duration of an earthquake:
Some shaky field observations. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27(4), 375-378.
VIEWING DISTANCE
Poor processing of identity information at longer distances
1. Lampinen, J. M., Erickson, W. B., Moore, K. N., & Hittson, A. (2014). Effects of distance on
face recognition: Implications for eyewitness identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,
21, 1489-1494.
2. Loftus, G. R., & Harley, E. R. (2005). Why is it easier to identify someone close than far
away? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 43-65.
3. Lindsay, R. C. L. Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M. R. (2008). How
variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Law and Human
Behavior, 32, 526-535.
4. Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of
eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law
and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.
Nonoptimal processing of identity information at distances shorter than 6 feet
McKone, E. (2009). Holistic processing for faces operates over a wide range of sizes but is
strongest at identification rather than conversational distances. Vision Research, 49, 268-283.
Typical poor performance in estimating distance:
Lindsay, R. C. L. Semmler, C., Weber, N., Brewer, N., & Lindsay, M. R. (2008). How variations
in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 32,
526-535.
PARTIAL DISGUISE
1. Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. D. (1986). Meta-analysis of face identification studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139-156.
2. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness
identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233258.
3. Wright, D. B., & Sladden, B. (2003). An own gender bias and the importance of hair in face
recognition. Acta Psychologica, 114, 101-114.
4. Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., Bertrand, M. I., Kalmet, N., Melson, E. I., & Lindsay, R. C. L.
(2012). Impact of disguise on identification decisions and confidence with simultaneous and
sequential lineups. Law and Human Behavior, 36(6), 513-526.
CONSEQUENTIALITY
1. Bartlett, J. C., Memon, A., Seipel, A., Hulse, L., & Searcy, J. (2003, July). Crime
characteristics affect lineup choices by young and older adults. Paper presented at the Fifth
Biennial Meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition. Aberdeen,
Scotland.
2. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification
decisions from video lineups in England, A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265.
DELAY FROM INCIDENT TO IDENTIFICATION
1. Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., McGorty, E. K., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Forgetting the
once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(2), 139-150.
2. Egan, D., Pittner, M., & Goldstein, A. G. (1977). Eyewitness identification: Photographs vs.
live models. Law and Human Behavior, 1, 199, 206.
VOICE IDENTIFICATION
Yarmey, A. D., Yarmey, A. L, & Yarmey, M. J. (1994). Face and voice identifications in
showups and lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 453-464.
Extreme overconfidence: Devenport, J. L., Studebaker, C. A., & Penrod, S. D. (1999).
Perspectives on jury decision-making. In F. T. Durso (Ed.), Handbook of applied cognition.
Chichester, UK: Wiley. pp. 819-845
And feedback effect: 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 earwitnesses. Law
and Human Behavior, 33, 111-121.
When a familiar voice is expected: Foulkes, P., & Barron, A. (2000). Telephone speaker
recognition amongst members of a close social network. Forensic Linguistics, 7(2), 180-198.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WITNESS
Age: Elderly witnesses
1. Horry, R., Memon, A., Wright, D., & Milne, R. (2012). Predictors of eyewitness identification
decisions from video lineups in England, A field study. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 257-265.
2. Memon, A., Bartlett, J., Rose, R., & Gray, C. (2003). The aging eyewitness: Effect of age on
face, delay, and source-monitoring ability. Journals of Gerontology, 58(6), P338-345.
And real-world IDs: Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of
eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
17, 969-993.
Age: Child witnesses
Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness
identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human
Behavior, 38(1), 94-108.
Pozzulo, J. D., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1998). Identification accuracy of children versus adults: A
meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 549-570.
“Trained Observers” (e.g., Police Officers).
1. Smart, S. M., Berry, M. A., & Rodriguez, D. N. (2014). Skilled observation and change
blindness: A comparison of law enforcement and student samples. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 28, 590-596.
2. Thomassin, L., & Alain, M. (1990). Performance of witnesses when giving evidence and
making eyewitness identification. Canadian Police College Journal, 14, 233-246.
3. Tickner, A. H., & Poulton, E. C. (1975). Watching for people and actions. Ergonomics, 18,
35-51.
4. Platz, S. J., & Hosch, H. M. (1988). Cross-racial/ethnic eyewitness identification: A field
study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 972-984.
5. Woodhead, M. M., Baddeley, A. D., Simmonds, D. C. V. (1979). On training people to
recognize faces. Ergonomics, 22(3), 333-343.
HINDSIGHT BIAS (That is, forgetting one’s previous beliefs or previous ignorance)
Witness’s current confidence strongly influences memory for earlier confidence: Semmler,
C., Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2004). Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness.
identification and nonidentification confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 334-236.
Classic demonstrations outside of eyewitness memory:
1. Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight ≠ foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment
under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
1(3), 288-299.
2. Fischhoff, B., and Beyth, R. (1975). “I knew it would happen:” Remembered probabilities of
once-future things. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 13, 1-16.
3. Harley, E. M., Carlsen, K. A., & Loftus, G. R. (2004). The “saw-it-all-along” effect:
Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 30(5), 960-968.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT REAL-WORLD CASES: Garrett, B. L. (2011).
Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. (Brandon Garrett, a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, examines
the first 250 cases that led to DNA exonerations. Eyewitness identification had contributed to
785 of these convictions.)
THESE ARE A SUBSET OF FACTORS RELEVANT TO EYEWITNESS
IDENTIFICATION AND A SMALL SELECTION OF REFERENCES FOR EACH. FOR
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES ON ANY OF THE ABOVE FACTORS OR FOR FURTHER
CONSULTATION ON EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION AND MEMORY, FEEL
FREE TO CONTACT THE AUTHORS.
WE ARE ALSO HAPPY TO PROVIDE REFERENCES AND TO OFFER
CONSULTATION ON COERCED CONFESSION AND DECEPTION DETECTION.
Nancy Franklin, nancy.franklin@stonybrook.edu, 631-632-7840.
Michael Greenstein, mgreenstei02@wesleyan.edu, 781-771-5413.