The unconscious transference effect: Are innocent bystanders ever misidentified?

Abstract

Unconscious transference refers to an eyewitness's misidentification of an innocent bystander for a criminal perpetrator because of the witness's exposure to the bystander in another context. In a series of five field studies involving 330 retail store clerks and 340 students, five retention intervals from 2 hours to 2 weeks, seven bystander-perpetrator intervals from 2 minutes to 2 weeks, three line-up types, two levels of line-up similarity, four different bystanders and four different targets, with one exception no evidence was obtained that could be interpreted to demonstrate the phenomenon of unconscious transference.That is, theresultsrepeatedly failed to reveal more misidentifications of an innocent bystander by witnesses who had been previously exposed to the bystander than by control eyewitnesses who had not. To the contrary, the prior observation of the bystander often served to reduce the frequency of misidentification. In the final experiment the kind of misidentification error referred to as unconscious transference did occur, but only within a particular combination of bystander-perpetrator similarity and line-up construction: a combination that, in conjunction with the kind of event used, seems unlikely in real-world settings. Nevertheless, the inclusion of a familiar face in the line-ups often altered witnesses' choices in such a way that choosing someone was more likely when the lineup included a familiar face than when it did not. Finally, in contrast to the current explanations of unconscious transference, it is argued that it may not be a sense of familiarity with the bystander that is the basis of misidentifications; rather, it may also include incorrect inferences about the likelihood that the bystander might be the perpetrator.

Adult age differences in unconscious transference: Source confusion or identity blending?

“…As such, the original encoding events may have been rather indistinct, therefore inflating the likelihood of obtainingtransference errors, as compared with the real world (cf. Read et al, 1990). Similarly, our use of a mug shot test phase, although useful for our theoretical purposes, may not transfer well to real-world cases in which participants see bystanders in other ways, not requiring judgments about familiarity.…”

“…In four field studies, Read, Tollestrup,Hammersley, McFadzen, and Christensen (1990) examined retail staff's memory for customers who had made unusual requests (e.g., asking for a $5 note in return for 20 quarters). The lineups contained bystanders who had made different requests, and no unconscious transference effects were shown at all.…”

I know your face but not where I saw you: Context memory is impaired for other-race faces

“…This suggests that people are less likely to remember the circumstances in which they encountered an individual of a different race. Research into bystander misidentification (Read et al, 1990;Ross et al, 1994) and mugshot exposure (Deffenbacher et al, 2006;Dysart et al, 2001) has shown that people can and do make mistakes concerning the context in which a face has been encountered. This study shows that these transference errors may be more likely in cross-race identifications.…”

“…For example, participants may be unable to accurately remember whether a target individual was an assailant or a bystander at a crime (Read et al, 1990;Ross, Ceci, Dunning, & Toglia, 1994), or may be unable to recall whether an individual was seen at a crime scene or later, in a photo array (Deffenbacher, Bornstein, & Penrod, 2006;Dysart, Lindsay, Hammond, & Dupuis, 2001).…”

“…The cognitive process involved in making such decisions is known as source monitoring, and failures in this process can lead to unconscious transference (see Lindsay, 2007, for a review). This is when a witness mistakes a familiar person from another time or place for the culprit (Read, Tollestrup, Hammersley, McFazden, & Christensen, 1990).…”