Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
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
M. Phillips, B. D. McAuliff, M. B. Kovera, B. L. Cutler (1999)
Double-blind lineup administration as a safeguard against investigator biasJournal of Applied Psychology, 84
G. Wells, C. Luus (1990)
Police Lineups as ExperimentsPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16
G. Wells, Amy Bradfield (1998)
"Good, you identified the suspect": Feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83
S. Fein, Allison McCloskey, T. Tomlinson (1997)
Can the Jury Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible TestimonyPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23
A. Rattner (1988)
Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice systemLaw and Human Behavior, 12
B. Scheck, P. Neufeld, J. Dwyer (2000)
Actual Innocence
Amy Bradfield, G. Wells, Elizabeth Olson (2002)
The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy.The Journal of applied psychology, 87 1
S. Fein, J. Hilton (1994)
Judging others in the shadow of suspicionMotivation and Emotion, 18
C. Semmler, N. Brewer, G. Wells (2004)
Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentification confidence.The Journal of applied psychology, 89 2
G. L. Wells, E. Olson (2003)
Eyewitness identificationAnnual Review of Psychology, 54
S. Fein, J. Hilton, Dale Miller (1990)
Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias.Journal of personality and social psychology, 58 5
C. Semmler, N. Brewer, G. L. Wells (2004)
Effects of postidentification feedback on eyewitness identification and nonidentificationJournal of Applied Psychology, 89
S. Fein (1996)
Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence biasJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70
C. Luus, G. Wells (1994)
The malleability of eyewitness confidence: co-witness and perseverance effectsJournal of Applied Psychology, 79
B. Cutler, Steven Penrod, H. Dexter (1990)
Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 14
S. Fox, H. Walters (1986)
The impact of general versus specific expert testimonyand eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgmentLaw and Human Behavior, 10
G. L. Wells, T. J. Ferguson, R. C. L. Lindsay (1981)
The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implication for triers of factJournal of Applied Psychology, 66
G. Wells (1993)
What do we know about eyewitness identification?The American psychologist, 48 5
J. Neuschatz, Elizabeth Preston, Amanda Burkett, M. Toglia, J. Lampinen, Joseph Neuschatz, A. Fairless, Deah Lawson, Ráchael Powers, C. Goodsell (2005)
The effects of post ‐identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memoryApplied Cognitive Psychology, 19
A. Rattner (1988)
Convicted but innocentLaw and Human Behavior, 12
M. Phillips, B. McAuliff, M. Kovera, B. Cutler (1999)
Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias.Journal of Applied Psychology, 84
G. Wells, Amy Bradfield (1999)
Distortions in Eyewitnesses' Recollections: Can the Postidentification-Feedback Effect Be Moderated?Psychological Science, 10
G. Wells, Elizabeth Olson, Steve Charman (2003)
Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay.Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 9 1
G. L. Wells, E. Luus (1990)
Police lineups as experiments: Social methodology as a framework for properly-conducted lineupsPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16
Three studies examined procedures for reducing the post-identification feedback effect. After viewing a video event, participants were then asked to identify a suspect from a target-absent photo lineup. After making their identification, some participants were given information suggesting that their identification was correct, while others were given no information about the accuracy of their identification. Some participants who received confirming feedback were also given reasons to entertain suspicion regarding the motives of the lineup administrator, either immediately (Experiment 1) or after a one-week retention interval (Experiment 2). Suspicious perceivers failed to demonstrate the confidence inflation effects typically associated with confirming post-identification feedback. In Experiment 3, the confidence prophylactic effect was tested both immediately and after a one-week retention interval. The effect of confidence prophylactic varied with retention interval such that it eliminated the effects of post-identification feedback immediately but not after a retention interval. However, the suspicion manipulation eliminated the post-identification feedback effects at both time intervals. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Jun 26, 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.