Cops and robbers (and eyewitnesses): a comparison of lineup administration by robbery detectives in the USA and Canada

References

• American Bar Association. (2004). Report to the House of Delegates. Retrieved from http://meetings.abanet.org/webupload/commupload/CR209700/relatedresources/ABAEyewitnessIDrecommendations.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beaudry, J., & Lindsay, R. C. (2006). Current identification procedure practices: A survey of Ontario police officers. The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 4, 178–183.
   Google Scholar
• Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges, and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 115–129. doi:10.1002/acp.1171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertrand, M., Lindsay, R. C., Beaudry, J., Mansour, J., & Whaley, E. (2010, March). Are they listening? Police officers and policy recommendations. Poster presented at the conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Vancouver, BC.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, S. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259. doi:10.1177/1745691612439584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, S. E., Marshall, T. E., & Rosenthal, R. (2009). Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(1), 63–75. doi:10.1037/a0015185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Compo, N., Gregory, A., & Fisher, R. (2012). Interviewing behavior in police investigators: A field study of a current US sample. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 359–375. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.494604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867–881. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.10.867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglass, A. B., & McQuiston-Surrett, D. (2006). Post-identification feedback: Exploring the effects of sequential photospread presentation and eyewitnesses' awareness of the identification task. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 991–1007. doi:10.1002/acp.1253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglass, A. B., Neuschatz, J. S., Imrich, J., & Wilkinson, M. (2010). Does post-identification feedback affect evaluations of eyewitness testimony and identification procedures? Law and Human Behavior, 34, 282–294. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9189-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglass, A. B., & Steblay, N. (2006). Memory distortion in eyewitnesses: A meta-analysis of the post-identification feedback effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 859–869. doi:10.1002/acp.1237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dysart, J. E., Lawson, V. Z., & Rainey, A. (2012). Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 312–319. doi:10.1037/h0093921
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greathouse, S. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33(1), 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hafstad, G. S., Memon, A., & Logie, R. (2004). Post-identification feedback, confidence and recollections of witnessing conditions in child witnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 901–912. doi:10.1002/acp.1037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1992). Showups, lineups, and photo identifications (model policy). Alexandria, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2010). Eyewitness identification (model policy). Alexandria, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: The fifth rule. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 649–653. doi:10.1023/A:1025702722645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lampinen, J. M., Judges, D. P., Odegard, T. N., & Hamilton, S. (2005). The reactions of mock jurors to the Department of Justice Guidelines for the Collection and Preservation of Eyewitness. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 155–162. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2702_6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manitoba Justice. (2001). The inquiry regarding Thomas Sophonow. Retrieved from http://www.gov.mb.ca/justice/publications/sophonow/recommendations/english.html#photo
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Justice. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• National Institute of Justice. (2003). Eyewitness evidence: A trainer's manual for law enforcement. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Neuschatz, J. S., Preston, E. L., Burkett, A. D., Toglia, M. P., Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., … Goodsell, C. A. (2005). The effects of post-identification feedback and age on retrospective eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 435–453. doi:10.1002/acp.1084
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, E. J., & Loftus, E. F. (2012). Clarkian logic on trial. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 260–263. doi:10.1177/1745691612442907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Police Executive Research Forum. (2013). A national survey of eyewitness identification procedures in law enforcement agencies. Retrieved from http://policeforum.org/library/eyewitness-identification/NIJEyewitnessReport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Quinlivan, D. S., Neuschatz, J. S., Douglass, A. B., Wells, G. L., & Wetmore, S. A. (2012). The effect of post-identification feedback, delay, and suspicion on accurate eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 206–214. doi:10.1037/h0093970
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (2002). Covert communication in classrooms, clinics, courtrooms, and cubicles. American Psychologist, 57, 839–849. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.11.839
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2009). Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 506–523. doi:10.1002/acp.1470
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L. (2006). Eyewitness identification: Systemic reforms. Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 615–643.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647. doi:10.1023/A:1025750605807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Steblay, N. K., & Dysart, J. E. (2012). Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264–271. doi:10.1177/1745691612443368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A., Safer, M. A., & Maro, C. M. (2011). What U.S. law enforcement officers know and believe about eyewitness factors, eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 488–500. doi:10.1002/acp.1717
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wogalter, M. S., Malpass, R. S., & McQuiston, D. E. (2004). A national survey of US police on preparation and conduct of identification lineups. Psychology, Crime & Law, 10(1), 69–82. doi:10.1080/10683160410001641873
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D. & Loftus, E. (2008). Eyewitness evidence. In G. Cohen & M. Conway (Eds.), Memory in the real world (pp. 91–105). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yarmey, A. D. (2003). Eyewitness identification: Guidelines and recommendations for identification procedures in the United States and Canada. Canadian Psychology, 44, 181–189. doi:10.1037/h0086938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar