There is increasing evidence that fake eyewitness identification is the primary cause of the conviction of innocent people. In 1996, the American Psychology/Law Society and Division 41 of the American Psychological Association appointed a subcommittee to review scientific evidence and make recommendations regarding the best procedures for constructing and conducting lineups and photospreads. Three important themes from the scientific literature relevant to lineup methods were identified and reviewed, namely relative-judgment processes, the lineups-as-experiments analogy, and confidence malleability. Recommendations are made that double-blind lineup testing should be used, that eyewitnesses should be forewarned that the culprit might not be present, that distmctors should be selected based on the eyewitness's verbal description of the perpetrator, and that confidence should be assessed and recorded at the time of identification. The potential costs and benefits of these recommendations are discussed.

Recognition for faces of persons of own and other race was explored in both black and white subjects at both a predominantly black and a predominantly white university. Ten stimulus photographs each of black and white males were selected from a pool of stimulus photographs for recognition. The d' measure denned by signal detection theory was used as an index of discriminability/acuity. White faces were found more discriminable than black faces, and subjects were found to have higher acuity for faces of own race. Questionnaire data suggested differential experience with persons of other race only for black subjects at the white university, and failed to show a relation of reported experience to recognition acuity. The hypothesis of greater heterogeneity of white faces was not tested.

Wills who stood in lineups for many long hours, and to Tim Varano who in addition played the role of vandal. We are likewise grateful to Henry Morlock who allowed us to vandalize during his demonstration and who took part in the drama.

Accusations of discriminatory treatment of minority persons in the criminal justice system create a need for policy and procedure development to create real and perceived equal treatment. A facial recognition deficit among law enforcement officers and witnesses for persons of another "race" contributes to unequal treatment of minority group members. This article demonstrates the other-race effect in an unusual context, reveals theoretical weaknesses, reveals the role of categorical processes in the phenomenon, and discusses policy implications. Experiment 1, based on feature and trait ratings, demonstrates that identical and racially ambiguous faces with different racial markers (hair) are perceived according to the marker. Experiment 2 demonstrates an other-race recognition effect using these faces. A feature acting as a racial marker can cause a face to be perceived and remembered differently. Other-race faces are perceived categorically, which drives the recognition process.

Child interviewing techniques derived from transcripts of the McMartin Preschool case were found to be substantially more effective than simple suggestive questions at inducing preschool children to make false allegations against a classroom visitor. Thirty-six children interviewed with McMartin techniques made 58% accusations, compared with 17% for 30 children interviewed with suggestive questions. Social influence and reinforcement appeared to be more powerful determinants of children's answers than simple suggestive questions. The SIRR model is proposed to explain how false statements may be elicited from children or adults. Categories identified in the SIRR model are suggestive questions, social influence, reinforcement, and removal from direct experience.