Effects of Administrator-Witness Contact on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy.

Haw, Ryann M; Fisher, Ronald P.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1106

Cited by 73 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The two studies showed similar patterns of results for simultaneous lineups, in that correct and false identification rates increased when suspect-specific bias was easier to convey and carry out. However, the proportional increases were not consistent across the two studies: Whereas Haw and Fisher (2004) showed an increase in innocence risk due to suspect-specific bias, Greathouse and Kovera (in press) showed a slight decrease in innocence risk. The results for sequential lineups were also inconsistent and also showed opposite patterns for innocence risk (increased innocence risk for Greathouse and Kovera [in press], but decreased innocence risk for Haw and Fisher [2004]).…”

Section: Simultaneous and Sequential Lineupsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…To date, there have been only two experiments (Greathouse & Kovera, in press;Haw & Fisher, 2004) in which these biases have been examined in both target-present and targetabsent lineups, and they have not presented a consistent pattern of results. Such results should present an interesting challenge for models, because the bias is not about whether to identify (which can be modeled as a simple larger for guilty suspects than for innocent suspects when the correct identification rate is high and the false identification rate is low in the simultaneous lineup condition (as it was in the studies listed above).…”

Section: Summary and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some cases, the sequential lineup disadvantage may have been due to the fact that the false identification rate for the innocent suspect was very low for simultaneous lineups: Carlson, Gronlund, and Clark (2008), Haw and Fisher (2004), Greathouse and Kovera (in press), and Rose, Bull, and Vrij (2005) obtained false identification (2005), p p paper-and-pencil and comp computer; for Haw and Fisher (2004), hc and lc denote high contact and low contact between lineup administrator and witness; for Carlson et al (2008), b, m, and f refer to biased, mixed, and fair lineup composition; for Smith et al (2001), sr and cr denote same-race and cross-race; for Pozzulo and Marciniac (2006), ac appearance changed and nc appearance not changed; for Greathouse and Kovera (in press), ba and nba denote blind and not-blind administration of the lineup, and u and b denote unbiased and biased instructions.…”

Section: Simultaneous and Sequential Lineupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Clark

Godfrey

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that the frailties of human memory and vulnerability to suggestion lead to eyewitness identification errors. However, variations in different aspects of the eyewitnessing conditions produce different kinds of errors that are related to wrongful convictions in very different ways. We present a review of the eyewitness identification literature, organized around underlying cognitive mechanisms, memory, similarity, and decision processes, assessing the effects on both correct and mistaken identification. In addition, we calculate a conditional probability we call innocence risk, which is the probability that the suspect is innocent, given that the suspect was identified. Assessment of innocence risk is critical to the theoretical development of eyewitness identification research, as well as to legal decision making and policy evaluation. Our review shows a complex relationship between misidentification and innocence risk, sheds light on some areas of controversy, and suggests that some issues thought to be resolved are in need of additional research.

show abstract

Section: Simultaneous and Sequential Lineupsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Section: Summary and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Simultaneous and Sequential Lineupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Clark

Godfrey

2009

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative would be to use any nonconflicting detail mentioned in the descriptions (i.e., a comprehensive description). It is often difficult to determine how descriptions are combined when researchers fail to report how descriptions are obtained or produced (e.g., Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004 provided no LINEUP FAIRNESS MEASURES 7 information; Haw &Fisher, 2004 andRyan, 1993 indicated they constructed a general description). Thus, we examined whether lineup fairness measures vary based on the type of description presented to mock witnesses.…”

Section: Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Mansour¹,

Beaudry²,

Kalmet³

et al. 2017

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Triers of fact sometimes consider lineup fairness when determining the suggestiveness of an identification procedure. Likewise, researchers often consider lineup fairness when comparing results across studies. Despite their importance, lineup fairness measures have received scant empirical attention and researchers inconsistently conduct and report mock-witness tasks and lineup fairness measures. We conducted a large-scale, online experiment (N = 1,010) to examine how lineup fairness measures varied with mock-witness task methodologies as well as to explore the validity and reliability of the measures. In comparison to descriptions compiled from multiple witnesses, when individual descriptions were presented in the mock-witness task, lineup fairness measures indicated a higher number of plausible lineup members but more bias toward the suspect. Target-absent lineups were consistently estimated to be fairer than target-present lineups—which is problematic because it suggests that lineups containing innocent suspects are less likely to be challenged in court than lineups containing guilty suspects. Correlations within lineup size measures and within some lineup bias measures indicated convergent validity and the correlations across the lineup size and lineup bias measures demonstrated discriminant validity. The reliability of lineup fairness measures across different descriptions was low and reliability across different sets of mock witnesses was moderate to high, depending on the measure. Researchers reporting lineup fairness measures should specify the type of description presented, the amount of detail in the description, and whether the mock witnesses viewed target-present and/or -absent lineups.

show abstract

“…Many have argued vociferously for the universal uptake of double-blind procedures in administering investigative line-ups in order to ameliorate influences subjected on witnesses that may compromise the integrity of identifications made [20,21,[32][33][34][35].…”

Section: Double-blind Procedures As a Safe-guard Against Administratomentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive bias in line-up identifications: The impact of administrator knowledge

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior knowledge of the likely or expected outcome of a forensic investigation has been shown to produce biases in results obtained, reducing objectivity within the forensic sciences. The wide prevalence of such cognitive biases has long been recognised by social psychologists, but its significance is only now gaining appreciation within forensic science communities. It is therefore timely to draw attention to the power of cognitive biases found in a study of the influence of administrator expectations on photographic identifications. Data are presented to show that when a line-up administrator knows the identity and position of a target within a line-up that target is more than twice as likely to be selected compared with when the administrator is kept 'blind'. These findings, taken together with related studies, support the recommendation that all forensic analyses are made 'double-blind'-a method that has proven to be effective at reducing such effects within the social science literature.

show abstract

Effects of Administrator-Witness Contact on Eyewitness Identification Accuracy.

Cited by 73 publications

References 23 publications

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

Evaluating lineup fairness: Variations across methods and measures.

Cognitive bias in line-up identifications: The impact of administrator knowledge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About