The mitigating effects of suspicion on post-identification feedback and on retrospective eyewitness memory.

Abstract

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.

Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility

“…Neuschatz et al, 2007) and on the behavioural credibility of the source, such as the plausibility of the co-witnesses' identification decisions (Luus & Wells, 1994). Whereas the current study attempted to manipulate source expertise, other studies have focused more on the trustworthiness of the source (e.g.…”

The Moderating Effect of Ecphoric Experience on Post‐identification Feedback: A Critical Test of the Cues‐based Inference Conceptualization

“…Although the mere passage of time prior to giving feedback (at least up to 48hours) does not itself mitigate the post-identification feedback effect (Wells, Olson, & Charman, 2003), making eyewitnesses privately think about their confidence prior to receiving feedback does (Neuschatz et al, 2007;Wells & Bradfield, 1999). Presumably, private thought about one's confidence prior to feedback creates a memory trace that eyewitnesses can use as a cue for making their judgments, thereby reducing the need to rely on feedback as a cue to make these judgments.…”

Expert Testimony on the Psychology of Eyewitness Identification

“…In fact, so far this year (2007), nearly a third of the published research papers on eyewitness identification utilize anecdotes of mistaken identification cases to introduce their topic of inquiry (Busey & Loftus, 2007;Haw, Dickinson, & Meissner, 2007;Keast, Brewer, & Wells, 2007;Krug, 2007;Lindsay, 2007;MacLin, & Phelan, 2007;Neuschatz, Lawson, Fairless, Powers, Neuschatz, & Goodsell, 2007;Remijn, & Crombag, 2007;Wells & Hasel, 2007). Additionally, DNA exoneration cases in relation to the issue of mistaken eyewitness identification are also cited in cases in which eyewitness memory experts have been involved (e.g., People v. Adams, 2008;People v. Copeland, 2007;United States v. Burton, 1998).…”