Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Clark (2005)
A Re-examination of the Effects of Biased Lineup Instructions in Eyewitness IdentificationLaw and Human Behavior, 29
N. Steblay (1997)
Social Influence in Eyewitness Recall: A Meta-Analytic Review of Lineup Instruction EffectsLaw and Human Behavior, 21
R. Lindsay, R. Martin, Lisa Webber (1994)
Default values in eyewitness descriptionsLaw and Human Behavior, 18
L. Jacoby, Mark Dallas (1981)
On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning.Journal of experimental psychology. General, 110 3
M. Wogalter, D. Marwitz, David Leonard (1992)
Suggestiveness in photospread line‐ups: Similarity induces distinctivenessApplied Cognitive Psychology, 6
R. Lindsay, Harold Wallbridge, D. Drennan (1987)
Do the clothes make the man? An exploration of the effect of lineup attire on eyewitness identification accuracy.Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19
E. Zechmeister, M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, R. Sykes (1980)
Practical aspects of memoryAmerican Journal of Psychology, 93
G. Wells, M. Small, Steven Penrod, R. Malpass, Solomon Fulero, C. Brimacombe (1998)
Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and PhotospreadsLaw and Human Behavior, 22
(2001)
At the scene of the crime : An examination of the external validity of published studies on line - up identification accuracy
A. Benjamin, S. Bawa (2004)
Distractor plausibility and criterion placement in recognitionJournal of Memory and Language, 51
G. Wells, Sheila Rydell, Eric Seelau (1993)
The selection of distractors for eyewitness lineupsJournal of Applied Psychology, 78
C. Luus, G. Wells (1991)
Eyewitness identification and the selection of distracters for lineupsLaw and Human Behavior, 15
John Sutton, Celia Harris, A. Barnier (1977)
Memory and Cognition
N. Steblay, Jennifer Dysart, S. Fulero, R. Lindsay (2003)
Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Police Showup and Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic ComparisonLaw and Human Behavior, 27
Bruce Behrman, Sherrie Davey (2001)
Eyewitness Identification in Actual Criminal Cases: An Archival AnalysisLaw and Human Behavior, 25
G. Wells, R. Lindsay (1980)
On Estimating the Diagnosticity of Eyewitness NonidentificationsPsychological Bulletin, 88
R. Lindsay, J. Lea, G. Nosworthy, Jennifer Fulford, Julia Hector, Virginia LeVan, Carolyn Seabrook (1991)
Biased lineups: sequential presentation reduces the problem.The Journal of applied psychology, 76 6
R. C. L. Lindsay, R. Martin, L. Webber (1994)
Default values in eyewitness descriptions: A problem for the match-to-description lineup foil selection strategyLaw & Human Behavior, 18
N. Steblay, Jennifer Dysart, S. Fulero, R. Lindsay (2001)
Eyewitness Accuracy Rates in Sequential and Simultaneous Lineup Presentations: A Meta-Analytic ComparisonLaw and Human Behavior, 25
G. Wells (1993)
What do we know about eyewitness identification?The American psychologist, 48 5
(1988)
Response bias with prototypic faces
J. Tunnicliff, S. Clark (2000)
Selecting Foils for Identification Lineups: Matching Suspects or Descriptions?Law and Human Behavior, 24
M. Gruneberg, P. Morris, R. Sykes (1988)
Practical aspects of memory : current research and issues
S. Clark, Sherrie Davey (2005)
The Target-to-Foils Shift in Simultaneous and Sequential LineupsLaw and Human Behavior, 29
A. Benjamin (2005)
Recognition memory and introspective remember/know judgments: Evidence for the influence of distractor plausibility on “remembering” and a caution about purportedly nonparametric measuresMemory & Cognition, 33
C. Meissner, C. Tredoux, J. Parker, O. MacLin (2005)
Eyewitness decisions in simultaneous and sequential lineups: A dual-process signal detection theory analysisMemory & Cognition, 33
M. Xu, F. Bellezza (2001)
A comparison of the multimemory and detection theories of know and remember recognition judgments.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 27 5
E. Ebbesen, H. Flowe (2002)
Simultaneous v. sequential lineups: What do we really know?
(1993)
Methods of constructing live and photographic lineups by police officers in the United States
Two experiments investigated whether remembering is affected by the similarity of the study face relative to the alternatives in a lineup. In simultaneous and sequential lineups, choice rates and false alarms were larger in low compared to high similarity lineups, indicating criterion placement was affected by lineup similarity structure (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, foil choices and similarity ranking data for target present lineups were compared to responses made when the target was removed from the lineup (only the 5 foils were presented). The results indicated that although foils were selected more often in target-removed lineups in the simultaneous compared to the sequential condition, responses shifted from the target to one of the foils at equal rates across lineup procedures.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Feb 4, 2007
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.