If an eyewitness rejects a show-up, police may respond by finding a new suspect and conducting a second show-up with the same eyewitness. Police may continue finding suspects and conducting show-ups until the eyewitness makes an identification (Study 1). Relatively low criterion-setting eyewitnesses filter themselves out of the multiple show-ups procedure by choosing the first suspect with whom they are presented (Studies 2 and 3). Accordingly, response bias was more stringent on the second show-up when compared with the first, but became no more stringent with additional show-ups. Despite this stringent shift in response bias, innocence risk increased with additional show-ups, as false alarms cumulate (Studies 2 and 3). Although unbiased show-up instructions decreased innocent suspect identifications, the numbers were still discouraging (Study 4). Given the high number of innocent suspects who would be mistakenly identified through the use of multiple show-up procedures, using such identifications as evidence of guilt is questionable. Although evidence of guilt is limited to identifications from a single show-up, practical constraints might sometimes require police to use additional show-ups. Accordingly, we propose a stronger partition between evidentiary and investigative procedures.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to develop a scale that measures adolescents' attitudes toward classroom incivility and determine whether items would reveal subscales. A sample of 549 adolescents between ages 11 and 18 (53.1% boys; M age = 13.90, SD = 1.41) completed items written to measure attitudes toward classroom incivility. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used on one half of the randomly split sample and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the remainder. Results from both analyses suggested that two factors representing unintentional and intentional incivility might be the best factor solution. In addition, evidence for concurrent validity was found in correlations with four additional scales. Results suggest that attitudes toward classroom incivility are heterogeneous and that adolescence may be an important developmental period to address this construct. Future studies should continue psychometrically developing this scale and exploring this measure with additional antisocial beliefs and behaviors.