Eyewitness identification studies have focused on the idea that unfair lineups, in which the suspect stands out, make witnesses more willing to identify that suspect. We asked whether unfair lineups-featuring suspects with distinctive features-also influence subjects' ability to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects, and their ability to judge the accuracy of their identification. In a single experiment (N = 8925), we compared three fair lineup techniques used by the police to unfair lineups in which we did nothing to prevent distinctive suspects from standing out. Compared to the fair lineups, doing nothing not only increased subjects' willingness to identify the suspect, it also markedly impaired subjects' ability to distinguish between innocent and guilty suspects. Accuracy was also reduced at every level of confidence.These results advance theory on witness identification performance and have important practical implications for how police should construct lineups when suspects have distinctive features.

(2016) A mega-analysis of memory reports from eight peer-reviewed false memory implantation studies. Memory, 25 (2). pp. 146-163. Permanent WRAP URL:http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/83729 Copyright and reuse:The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available.Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP URL' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription. In Press, Memory, November 9, 2016. This is not the official copy of record; the final published version may differ slightly.Author note: Please direct correspondence to A. Scoboria, Department of Psychology, 401 Sunset, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, N9B 3P4, scoboria@uwindsor.ca; K. Wade, Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, University Road, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom, K.A.Wade@warwick.ac.uk; S. Lindsay, Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria BC, Canada,V8W 2Y2, slindsay@uvic.ca. This research was supported by a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada Discovery Grant to the first author (RGPIN/327570−2012). The authors thank the many research assistants who contributed to this research. RUNNING HEAD: Mega-analysis of False Memory Reports… 2 AbstractUnderstanding that suggestive practices can promote false beliefs and false memories for childhood events is important in many settings (e.g., psychotherapeutic, medical, legal). The generalizability of findings from memory implantation studies has been questioned due to variability in estimates across studies. Such variability is partly due to false memories having been operationalized differently across studies and to differences in memory induction techniques. We explored ways of defining false memory based on memory science and developed a reliable coding system that we applied to reports from eight published implantation studies (N=423). Independent raters coded transcripts using seven criteria: accepting the suggestion, elaboration beyond the suggestion, imagery, coherence, emotion, memory statements, and not rejecting the suggestion. Using this scheme, 30.4% of cases were classified as false memories and another 23% wer...

No abstract

Research examining maladaptive responses to trauma routinely relies on spontaneous self-report to index intrusive thoughts, which assumes people accurately recognize and report their intrusive thoughts. However, "mind-wandering" research reveals people are not always meta-aware of their thought content: they often fail to notice shifts in their attention. In two experiments, we exposed subjects to trauma films, then instructed them to report intrusive thoughts during an unrelated reading task. Intermittently, we asked whether they were thinking about the trauma. As expected, subjects often spontaneously reported intrusive thoughts. However, they were also "caught" engaging in unreported trauma-oriented thoughts. The presence and frequency of intermittent probes did not influence self-caught intrusions. Both self-caught and probe-caught intrusions were related to an existing tendency toward intrusive cognition, film-related distress, and thought suppression attempts. Our data suggest people may lack meta-awareness of trauma-related thoughts, which has implications for theory, research and treatment relating to trauma-related psychopathology.