About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Criminology
Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 530523, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/530523
Review Article

Eyewitness Science and the Call for Double-Blind Lineup Administration

Department of Psychology, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, OH 45469-1430, USA

Received 26 June 2012; Revised 12 August 2012; Accepted 27 August 2012

Academic Editor: Pär Anders Granhag

Copyright © 2013 Dario N. Rodriguez and Melissa A. Berry. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. S. R. Gross and M. Shaffer, “Exonerations in the United States, 1989–2012: A report by the National Registry of Exonerations,” 2012, http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/exonerations_us_1989_2012_full_report.pdf.
  2. National Registry of Exonerations, “Exoneration case detail: Colin Warner,” 2012, http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3718.
  3. Innocence Project, 2012, http://www.innocenceproject.org/.
  4. G. L. Wells, A. Memon, and S. D. Penrod, “Eyewitness evidence: improving its probative value,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 45–75, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. G. F. Arnold, Psychology Applied to Legal Evidence and Other Constructions of Law, Thacker, Spink & Co, Calcutta, India, 1906.
  6. A. Binet, On Suggestibility, Schleicher, Paris, France, 1900.
  7. C. Lombroso, L’Uomo Delinquente, Hoepli, Milan, Italy, 1876.
  8. H. Münsterberg, On the Witness Stand, Doubleday, New York, NY, USA, 1908.
  9. L. W. Stern, “The statement as a mental achievement and product of interrogation,” Beiträge zur Psychologie der Assuage, vol. 3, pp. 269–415, 1904.
  10. G. M. Whipple, “The obtaining of information: psychology of observation and report,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 217–248, 1918. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. M. Whipple, “Recent literature on the psychology of testimony,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 365–368, 1910. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. G. M. Whipple, “The psychology of testimony,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 307–309, 1911. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. G. M. Whipple, “Psychology of testimony and report,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 264–269, 1912. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. L. Wells and S. D. Penrod, “Eyewitness identification research: strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods,” in Research Methods in Forensic Psychology, B. Rosenfeld and S. D. Penrod, Eds., pp. 237–256, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011.
  15. G. L. Wells, “Eyewitness identification: systemic reforms,” Wisconsin Law Review, vol. 2006, no. 2, pp. 615–643, 2006. View at Scopus
  16. G. L. Wells, N. K. Steblay, and J. E. Dysart, “Eyewitness identification reforms: are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits?” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 7, pp. 264–271, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. G. L. Wells, M. Small, S. Penrod, R. S. Malpass, S. M. Fulero, and C. A. E. Brimacombe, “Eyewitness identification procedures: recommendations for lineups and photospreads,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 603–647, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. S. H. Mecklenburg, Report to the Legislature of the State of Illinois: The Illinois Pilot Program on Sequential Double-Blind Identification Procedures, Illinois State Police, Springfield, Ill, USA, 2006.
  19. D. L. Schacter, R. Dawes, L. L. Jacoby et al., “Policy forum: studying eyewitness investigations in the field,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–5, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. G. L. Wells, “Field experiments on eyewitness identification: towards a better understanding of pitfalls and prospects,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 6–10, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. G. L. Wells and D. S. Quinlivan, “Suggestive eyewitness identification procedures and the supreme court's reliability test in light of eyewitness science: 30 years later,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–24, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. G. L. Wells, Eyewitness Identification: A System Handbook, Carswell Legal Publications, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1988.
  23. R. Rosenthal, “Interpersonal expectancy effects: a 30-year perspective,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 3, pp. 176–179, 1994. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  24. R. Rosenthal, “Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles,” The American Psychologist, vol. 57, no. 11, pp. 839–849, 2002. View at Scopus
  25. R. Rosenthal, “From unconscious experimenter bias to teacher expectancy effects,” in Teacher Expectancies, J. G. Dusek, V. C. Hall, and W. J. Meyer, Eds., pp. 37–65, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1985.
  26. R. Rosenthal and K. L. Fode, “Three experiments in experimenter bias,” Psychological Reports, vol. 12, pp. 491–511, 1963.
  27. R. Rosenthal, “Interpersonal expectations,” in Artifact in Behavioral Research, R. Rosenthal and R. L. Rosnow, Eds., pp. 181–277, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 1969.
  28. R. Rosenthal and D. B. Rubin, “Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 377–415, 1978. View at Scopus
  29. R. Rosenthal and K. L. Fode, “The effect of experimenter bias on the performance of the albino rat,” Behavioral Science, vol. 8, pp. 183–189, 1963.
  30. R. Rosenthal and R. Lawson, “A longitudinal study of the effects of experimenter bias on the operant learning of laboratory rats,” Journal of Psychiatric Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 61–72, 1964. View at Scopus
  31. R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, “Teachers' expectancies: determinants of pupils' IQ gains,” Psychological Reports, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 115–118, 1966. View at Scopus
  32. R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson, Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils’ Intellectual Development, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY, USA, 1968.
  33. N. Ambady, D. LaPlante, T. Nguyen, N. Chaumeton, W. Levinson, and R. Rosenthal, “Surgeons' tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history,” Surgery, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 5–9, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. L. A. Learman, J. Avorn, D. E. Everitt, and R. Rosenthal, “Pygmalion in the nursing home: the effects of caregiver expectations on patient outcomes,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 797–803, 1990. View at Scopus
  35. T. Kida, “The impact of hypothesis-testing strategies on auditors’ use of judgment data,” Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 22, pp. 332–340, 1984.
  36. P. D. Blanck, R. Rosenthal, A. J. Hart, and F. Bernieri, “The measure of the judge: an empirically-based framework for exploring trial judges’ behavior,” Iowa Law Review, vol. 75, pp. 653–684, 1990.
  37. A. M. Halverson, A. J. Hart, M. Hallahan, and R. Rosenthal, “Reducing the biasing effects of judges' nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 590–598, 1997. View at Scopus
  38. G. L. Wells and E. Luus, “Police lineups as experiments: social methodology as a framework for properly conducted lineups,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 16, pp. 106–117, 1990.
  39. M. R. Phillips, B. D. McAuliff, M. B. Kovera, and B. L. Cutler, “Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 940–951, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. R. C. L. Lindsay and G. L. Wells, “Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups. Simultaneous versus sequential lineup presentation,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 556–564, 1985. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. A. H. Perlini and A. D. Silvaggio, “Eyewitness misidentification: single versus double-blind comparison of photospread administration,” Psychological Reports, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 247–256, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. R. M. Haw and R. P. Fisher, “Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 1106–1112, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. L. Beaudry, Video-recorded lineup procedures and detecting identification accuracy [Doctoral dissertation], Queens University, Ontario, Canada, 2008.
  44. J. E. Dysart and L. Fugal, “Improving the sequential lineup? The effects of double blind testing and the envelope technique on post-identification feedback,” in Proceedings of the American Psychology Law Society Annual Meeting, St. Petersburg, Fla, USA, March 2006.
  45. J. E. Dysart, A. Rainey, J. Owens, K. Chong, and V. Z. Lawson, “Double-blind lineup administration and the postidentification feedback effect,” in Proceedings of the American Psychology Law Society Annual Meeting, Jacksonville, Fla, USA, March 2008.
  46. R. M. Haw, T. L. Mitchell, and G. L. Wells, “The influence of lineup administrator knowledge and witness perceptions on eyewitness identification decisions,” in Proceedings of the International Congress of Psychology and Law, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2003.
  47. M. B. Russano, J. J. Dickinson, S. A. Cass, M. B. Kovera, and B. L. Cutler, “Testing the effects of lineup administrator knowledge in simultaneous and sequential lineups,” in Proceedings of the American Psychology-Law Society Biennial Meeting, Austin, Tex, USA, March 2002.
  48. S. M. Greathouse and M. B. Kovera, “Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 70–82, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. S. D. Penrod, “How well are witnesses performing?” Criminal Justice Magazine, vol. 54, pp. 36–47, 2003.
  50. G. L. Wells and R. C. Lindsay, “On estimating the diagnosticity of eyewitness nonidentifications,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 776–784, 1980. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. J. L. Austin, D. M. Zimmerman, L. M. Rhead, K. A. Almeida, and M. B. Kovera, “Suspect similarity to perpetrator moderates the effect of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification accuracy,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, March 2012.
  52. L. M. Rhead, D. N. Rodriguez, V. Korobeynikov, J. H. Yip, and M. B. Kovera, “The effects of lineup administrator influence and mortality salience on witness identification accuracy accuracy,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, New York, NY, USA, June 2011.
  53. D. M. Zimmerman, J. L. Austin, L. M. Rhead, K. A. Almeida, and M. B. Kovera, “Retention interval and suspect/perpetrator similarity moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, March 2012.
  54. S. E. Clark, “Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: psychological science and public policy,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 7, pp. 238–259, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  55. A. B. Douglass, C. Smith, and R. Fraser-Thill, “A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: photospread administrators use one eyewitness's confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 543–562, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. S. E. Clark, “Eyewitness identification reform: data, theory, and due process,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol. 7, pp. 279–283, 2012.
  57. G. L. Wells, N. K. Steblay, and J. E. Dysart, A test of the simultaneous v. sequential lineup methods: an initial report of the AJS national eyewitness identification field studies, American Judicature Society, Des Moines, Iowa, USA, 2011.
  58. A. L. Bradfield and G. L. Wells, “The perceived validity of eyewitness identification testimony: a test of the five Biggers criteria,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 581–594, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 1977.
  60. G. L. Wells and A. L. Bradfield, ““Good, you identified the suspect”: feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 360–376, 1998. View at Scopus
  61. A. L. Bradfield, G. L. Wells, and E. A. Olson, “The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 112–120, 2002. View at Scopus
  62. D. N. Rodriguez and M. A. Berry, “System and estimator variables, eyewitness confidence, and the postidentification feedback effect,” American Journal of Forensic Psychology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 17–37, 2010. View at Scopus
  63. C. Semmler, N. Brewer, and G. L. Wells, “Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 334–346, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. A. B. Douglass and N. Steblay, “Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: a meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 859–869, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  65. A. B. Douglass, N. Brewer, and C. Semmler, “Moderators of post-identification feedback effects on eyewitnesses' memory reports,” Legal and Criminological Psychology, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 279–292, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. D. B. Wright and E. M. Skagerberg, “Postidentification feedback affects real eyewitnesses,” Psychological Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 172–178, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  67. L. Garrioch and C. A. E. Brimacombe, “Lineup administrators' expectations: their impact on eyewitness confidence,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 299–315, 2001. View at Scopus
  68. J. E. Dysart, V. Z. Lawson, and A. Rainer, “Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 312–319, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  69. S. D. Charman and G. L. Wells, “The moderating effect of ecphoric experience on post-identification feedback: a critical test of the cues-based inference conceptualization,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 26, pp. 243–250, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. N. K. Steblay, J. E. Dysart, and G. L. Wells, “Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: a meta-analysis and policy discussion,” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–139, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. N. K. Steblay, “What we know now: the evanston Illinois field lineups,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. R. S. Nickerson, “Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises,” Review of General Psychology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 175–220, 1998. View at Scopus
  73. B. W. Behrman and S. L. Davey, “Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: an archival analysis,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 475–491, 2001. View at Scopus
  74. P. A. Tollestrup, J. W. Turtle, and J.C. Yuille, “Actual witnesses to robbery and fraud: an archival analysis,” in Adult Eyewitness Testimony: Current Trends and Developments, D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, and M. P. Toglia, Eds., pp. 144–162, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  75. D. N. Rodriguez and M. A. Berry, “The influence of administrator blindness on the recording of eyewitness identification decisions,” Legal and Criminological Psychology. In press.
  76. Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement [Booklet], United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC, 1999.
  77. Attorney General Guidelines for Preparing and Conducting Photo and Live Lineup Identification Procedures, Department of Law and Public Safety, Office of the Attorney General, Trenton, NJ, USA, 2001.
  78. Innocence Project, “Reevaluating lineups: Why witnesses make mistakes and how to reduce the chance of a misidentifications,” 2009, http://www.innocenceproject.org/docs/Eyewitness_ID_Report.pdf.
  79. American Bar Association, “Statement of best practices for promoting the accuracy of eyewitness identification procedures,” 2004, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/death_penalty_moratorium/reduce_risk_convicting_innocent0804.authcheckdam.pdf.
  80. International Association of Chiefs of Police, Eyewitness Identification: Model Policy, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, Va, USA, 2010.
  81. A. Bradfield and D. E. McQuiston, “When does evidence of eyewitness confidence inflation affect judgments in a criminal trial?” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 369–387, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. A. B. Douglass and E. E. Jones, “Confidence inflation in eyewitnesses: seeing is not believing,” Legal and Criminological Psychology. In press. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  83. J. M. Darley and P. H. Gross, “A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 20–33, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. J. E. Dysart, G. L. Wells, N. K. Steblay, and D. R. Mitchell, “A double-blind experiment of simultaneous versus sequential lineups using actual eyewitnesses: lab-field differences,” in Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA, March 2012.
  85. D. N. Rodriguez and M. A. Berry, “Jurors’ causal and counterfactual evaluations of factors affecting eyewitness evidence,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology Law Society, Vancouver, BC, Canada, March 2010.
  86. D. B. Wright, M. E. Carlucci, J. R. Evans, and N. S. Compo, “Turning a blind eye to double blind line-ups,” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 849–867, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. B. L. Cutler, S. D. Penrod, and T. E. Stuve, “Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases,” Law and Human Behavior, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 41–55, 1988. View at Scopus
  88. Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification, State of Wisconsin Office of the Attorney General, Madison, Wis, USA.