Eyewitness identification procedures for multiple perpetrator crimes: a survey of police in Sweden, Belgium, and the Netherlands

References

• 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
• Clifford, B. R., & Hollin, C. R. (1981). Effects of the type of incident and the number of perpetrators on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 364–370. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, G. D. (1988). Faces and places: Laboratory research on context and face recognition. In G. M. Davies & D. M. Thomson (Eds.), Memory in context: Context in memory (pp. 35–53). London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., McGorty, K., & Penrod, S. D. (2008). Forgetting the once-seen face: Estimating the strength of an eyewitness’s memory representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 139–150. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.14.2.139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T., & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identification procedures using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 3–10. doi: 10.1177/0963721413498891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson, Z. J., & Wilcock, R. (2011). Eyewitness identification of multiple perpetrators. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 13, 286–296. doi:10.1350/ijps.2011.13.4.253
   Google Scholar
• Hobson, Z. J., Wilcock, R., & Valentine, T. (2012). Multiple suspect showing: A survey of police identification officers. Policing, 21, 79–87. doi: 10.1093/police/pas021
   Google Scholar
• Juodis, M., Woodworth, M., Porter, S., & Ten Brinke, L. (2009). Partners in crime: A comparison of individual and multiple perpetrator homicides. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 824–839. doi: 10.1177/0093854809337822
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kask, K., & Bull, R. (2009). The effects of different presentation methods on multi-ethnicity face recognition. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 73–89. doi: 10.1080/10683160802131131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krix, A. C., Sauerland, M., Lorei, C., & Rispens, I. (2015). Consistency across repeated eyewitness interviews: Contrasting police detectives’ beliefs with actual eyewitness performance. PLoS ONE, 10, e0118641. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liem, M., Ganpat, S., Granath, S., Hagstedt, J., Kivivuori, J., Lehti, M., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2013). Homicide in Finland, the Netherlands, and Sweden first findings from the European homicide monitor. Homicide Studies, 17, 75–95. doi: 10.1177/1088767912452130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansour, J. K., Beaudry, J. L., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (2017). Are multiple-trial experiments appropriate for eyewitness identification studies? Accuracy, choosing, and confidence across trials. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 2235–2254. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0855-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Megreya, A. M., & Burton, A. M. (2006). Recognising faces seen alone or with others: When two heads are worse than one. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 957–972. doi: 10.1002/acp.1243
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). (1984). Codes of practice (Code D). (2013). Retrieved from http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/powers-pace-codes/pace-codeintro/
   Google Scholar
• Rikspolisstyrelsen. (2005). Vittneskonfrontation. Retrieved from https://polisen.se/Global/www20och20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/0120Polisen20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Vittneskonfrontation_2005.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sauerland, M., Krix, A. C., & Merckelbach, H. (2016). Konstruktion, Durchführung und Beurteilung von Gegenüberstellungen sind mehr als gesunder Menschenverstand [Lineup construction, administration and evaluation are more than just common sense. Let legal psychologists do their job]. Recht & Psychiatrie, 34, 11–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. (2016). Table 253-0008 - Homicide survey, gang-related homicide, by region, annual, CANSIM (database).
   Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139. doi: 10.1037/a0021650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The output for this paper was generated using Qualtrics software. Copyright ©2016 Qualtrics. 2016. Qualtrics and all other Qualtrics product or service names are registered trademarks or trademarks of Qualtrics, Provo, UT. Retrieved from http://www.qualtrics.com
   Google Scholar
• Tupper, N., Sauer, J. D., Sauerland, M., Fu, I., & Hope, L. (2018a). Face value: Testing the utility of contextual face cues for face recognition. Memory, 26, 1436–1449. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2018.1489968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tupper, N., Sauerland, M., Sauer, J. D., Broers, N. J., Charman, S. D., & Hope, L. (2018b). Showup identification decisions for multiple perpetrator crimes: Testing for sequential dependencies. PLoS ONE, 13(12), e0208403. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208403
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Amelsvoort, A. (2018). Handleiding confrontatie (10th ed.). Amsterdam: Stapel & De Koning.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, E. C., & Pozzulo, J. D. (2006). Accuracy of eyewitnesses with a two-culprit crime: Testing a new identification procedure. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 417–427. doi: 10.1080/10683160500050666
   Web of Science ®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