Reinstatement of context in a field experiment on eyewitness identification.

Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk

“…3 These lineup and showup results suggest that Ebbesen and Konecni's (1996) skepticism about increases in false identifications may apply to lineups but not to showups. This may largely be the case, although we note that five studies in Table 3 ( Boyce et al, 2008;Dekle, 1997;Krafka & Penrod, 1985;Memon, Bartlett, Rose, & Gray, 2003;Read, 1995) did show false identification increases. The mirror pattern may arise in lineups, but the distribution of responses over multiple lineup members may cause the false identification side of the mirror to be small and blurry.…”

“…Regarding the loss of information over time, "Surely memory for a never seen face (i.e., an innocent suspect) does not become stronger as time goes on." The effects of delay have been controversial in the eyewitness memory literature for decades (McCloskey & Egeth, 1983) and continue to generate controversy, since some assert that the effects of delay are intuitive , whereas others (Dysart & Lindsay, 2007) have asserted that "at this point in time we do not know much about the impact of delay on eyewitness identifica- Retention Interval Krafka & Penrod (1985) . Note-Correct identifications are suspect identifications from target-present lineups, false identifications are suspect identifications from targetabsent lineups.…”

“…Increasing the overall identification rate can give the appearance that memory has not faded over time, with correct identification rates that decrease very little (Krafka & Penrod, 1985) or actually increase slightly (Dekle, 1997) over time. Read (1995, high similarity) .934 .500 .692 .556 Read (1995, low similarity) .637 .429 .293 .601 Krafka & Penrod (1985) .364 .750 .462 .667 Shepherd, Ellis, & Davies (1982, p. 97) .600 .500 .318 .286 Shepherd et al (1982, p. 85) Note-ID rate overall identification rate suspTP foil TP; identification accuracy suspTP/(suspTP foilTP). a Studies not included in Table 3. consciously or unconsciously compensate for the loss of information over time by lowering their decision criterion?…”

Eyewitness recognition errors: The effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults

“…However, where many similar items are encountered on the test and where lures share many similarities with targets, still higher levels of environmental support might be required by seniors and, in some cases, by young adults as well (see Koutstaal & Schacter, 2002, for a review). Instructions designed to facilitate recall of original contextualcues can, on occasion, reduce false choosing in eyewitness tasks (Cutler, Penrod, & Martens, 1997;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997;Kraffka & Penrod, 1985;Malpass & Devine, 1981;Smith & Vela, 1992), although several studies report null effects (e.g., Fisher, Quigley, Brock, Chin, & Cutler, 1990;Searcy et al, 2001). In the present study, we manipulated environmental support by comparing a standard lineup condition with one in which participants were encouraged to recollect context and to base recollection on what they had seen in the video.…”

The Effect of Repeated Photographic Identification and Time Delay on the Accuracy of the Final Photographic Identification and the Rating of Memory

“…Likewise, in conditions 1, 2 and 4, the post-decision rating was higher than the pre-decision rating, while there was no such difference in conditions 3 and 5. Although some research warns that confidence cannot be used as an indicator of accuracy (Bothwell, Deffenbacher and Brigham, 1987;Jusliu, Olsson and Willman, 1996;Wells and Turtle, 1987), there are substantial reports showing the positive correlation between the accuracy and the confidence, especially the post-decision confidence (eg Brigham ct al., 1982;Krafka and Penrod, 1985;Naka, Itsukushima and Itoh, 1996;Sporer, 1992). It is worth noting that the relationship between the accuracy and confidence may change depending on how the subjects spend the retention interval.…”