- category verbal descriptions
.
Applied Cognitive Psychology , 17 , 183 – 201 .
Cady , H. M. ( 1924 ). On the psychology of testimony . American Journal of Psychology ,
35 , 110 – 112 .
Christie , D. F. & Ellis , H. D. ( 1981 ). Photofi t constructions versus verbal descriptions
of faces . Journal of Applied Psychology , 66 , 358 – 363 .
Clifford , B. R. & George , R. ( 1996 ). A fi eld evaluation of training in three methods
of witness/victim investigative interviewing
.
Psychology, Crime and Law ,
2 ,
231 – 248 .
Craik , F. I. M. & Lockhart , R. S. ( 1972 ). Levels of processing: A framework for
memory research
.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior ,
11 ,
671 – 684 .
Davies , G. M. , Van der Willik , P. & Morrison , L. J. ( 2000 ). Facial composite produc-
tion: a comparison of mechanical and computer - driven systems . Journal of Applied
Psychology , 85 , 119 – 124 .
254
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Demarchi , S. ( 2003 ). Conception and evaluation of an interviewing method for person
recall based on a social psychology engineering approach. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Paris 8 University.
Demarchi , S. , Py , J. , Parain , T. & Groud - Tan , N. ( 2006 ). Describe a person without
prompt verbal overshadowing effect . Proceedings of the 16th conference of the
European Association of Psychology and Law .
Dent , H. R. & Stephenson , G. M. ( 1979 ). An experimental study of the effectiveness
of different techniques of questioning child witnesses . British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology , 18 , 41 – 51 .
Doob , A. N. & Kirshenbaum , H. M. ( 1973 ). Bias in police lineups – partial remem-
bering . Journal of Police Science and Administration , 1 , 287 – 293 .
Ellis , H. D. ( 1986 ). Face recall: A psychological perspective . Human Learning , 5 ,
189 – 196 .
Ellis , H. D. , Shepherd , J. W. & Davies , G. M. ( 1980 ). The deterioration of verbal
descriptions of faces over different delay intervals . Journal of Police Science and
Administration , 8 , 101 – 106 .
Fahsing , I. A. , Ask , K. & Granhag , P. A. ( 2004 ). The man behind the mask: Accuracy
and predictors of eyewitness offender descriptions . Journal of Applied Psychology ,
89 , 722 – 729 .
Finger , K. & Pezdek , K. ( 1999 ). The effect of cognitive interview on face identifi cation
accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing . Journal of Applied Psychology , 84 ,
340 – 348 .
Fisher , R. P. , Geiselman , R. E. , Raymond , D. S. , Jurkewich , L. M. & Warhaftig , M.
L. ( 1987 ). Enhancing enhanced eyewitness memory: Refi ning the cognitive inter-
view . Journal of Police Science and Administration , 15 , 291 – 297 .
Geiselman , R. E. , Fisher , R. P. , Firstenberg , I. , Hutton , L. A. , Sullivan , S. , Avetissian ,
I. & Prosk , A. ( 1984 ). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evalu-
ation of the cognitive interview . Journal of Police Science and Administration , 12 ,
74 – 80 .
Geiselman , R. E. , Schroppel , T. , Tubridy , A. , Konishi , T. & Rodriguez , V. ( 2000 ).
Objectivity bias in eyewitness performance
.
Applied Cognitive Psychology ,
14 ,
323 – 332 .
Ginet , M. & Py , J. ( 2001 ). A technique for enhancing memory in eyewitness testimo-
nies for use by police offi cers and judicial offi cers: the cognitive interview . Le
Travail Humain , 64 , 173 – 191 .
Goulding ,
G. J.
(
1971 ).
Facial description ability
.
Police Research Bulletin ,
19 ,
42 – 44 .
Green , D. L. & Geiselman , R. E. ( 1989 ). Building composite facial images: Effects of
feature saliency and delay of construction
.
Journal of Applied Psychology ,
74 ,
714 – 721 .
Kuehn , L. L. ( 1974 ). Looking down a gun barrel: Person perception and violent crime .
Perceptual and Motor Skills , 39 , 1159 – 1164 .
Laughery , K. R. , Duval , C. & Wogalter , M. S. ( 1986 ). Dynamics of facial recall .
In H. D . Ellis , M. A. Jeeves , F. Newcombe & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face
processing , (pp. 373 – 397 ). Dordrecht : Martinus Nijhoff .
Lindsay , R. C. L. , Martin , R. & Webber , L. ( 1994 ). Default values in eyewitness
description: A problem for the match - to - description lineup foil selection strategy .
Law and Human Behavior , 18 , 527 – 541 .
A Method to Enhance Person Description
255
Lipton , J. P. ( 1977 ). On the psychology of eyewitness testimony . Journal of Applied
Psychology , 62 , 90 – 95 .
Meissner , C. A. ( 2002 ). Applied aspects of the instructional bias effect in verbal over-
shadowing . Applied Cognitive Psychology , 16 , 911 – 928 .
Meissner , C. A. , Brigham , J. C. & Kelley , C. M. ( 2001 ). The infl uence of retrieval
processes in verbal overshadowing . Memory and Cognition , 29 , 176 – 186 .
Pozzulo , J. D. & Warren , K. L. ( 2003 ). Descriptions and identifi cations of strangers
by youth and adult eyewitness . Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 315 – 323 .
Py , J. & Demarchi , S. ( 2006 ). Describe and detect criminal with the cognitive inter-
view . Revue Qu é bequoise de Psychologie , 27 , 197 – 215 .
Py , J. , Demarchi , S. & Ginet M. ( 2003 ). ‘ Who is the suspect? ’ A complementary instruc-
tion to the standard mock witness paradigm . 2nd Psychology and Law International
and Interdisciplinary Conference. Edinburgh.
Schooler ,
J. W.
& Engstler - Schooler ,
T. Y.
(
1990 ).
Verbal overshadowing of
visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid
.
Cognitive Psychology ,
22 ,
36 – 71 .
Sporer , S. L. ( 1996 ). Psychological aspects of person descriptions . In S. L. Sporer ,
R. S. Malpass & G. K ö hnken (Eds.), Psychological issues in eyewitness identifi cation .
(pp. 53 – 87 ). Mahwah, NJ : Lawence Erlbaum .
Stern , L. W. ( 1902 ). Zur Psychologie der Aussage [On the psychology of testimony] .
Zeitschrift fuer die gesamte Strafrechtwissenschaft , 22 , 315 – 370 .
Tanaka , J. W. & Farah , M. J. ( 1993 ). Parts and wholes in faces recognition . Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Experimental Psychology , 46A , 225 –
245 .
Tollestrup , P. A. , Turtle , J. W. & Yuille , J. C. ( 1994 ). Actual victims and witnesses to
robbery and fraud: An archival analysis . In D. F. Ross , J. D. Read & M. P. Toglia
(Eds.),
Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp.
144 –
162 ). Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .
Tunnicliff ,
J. L.
& Clark ,
S. E.
(
2000 ).
Selecting foils for identifi cation lineups:
Matching to suspects or descriptions?
&
nbsp; Law and Human Behavior ,
24 ,
231 –
258 .
Van Koppen , P. J. & Lochun , S. K. ( 1997 ). Portraying perpetrators: The validity
of offender descriptions by witnesses . Law and Human Behavior , 21 , 661 – 685 .
Wells , G. L. & Bradfi eld , A. L. ( 1999 ). Measuring the goodness of lineups: Parameter
estimation, question effects, and limits to the mock witness paradigm . Applied
Cognitive Psychology , 13 , S 27 – S 40 .
Wells , G. L. , Rydell , S. M. & Seelau , E. P. ( 1993 ). The selection of distractors for
eyewitness lineups . Journal of Applied Psychology , 78 , 835 – 844 .
Wells , G. L. , Small , M. , Penrod , S. , Malpass , R. S. , Fulero , S. M. & Brimacombe ,
C. A. E.
(
1998 ).
Eyewitness identifi cation procedures: Recommendations for
lineups and photospreads . Law and Human Behavior , 22 , 603 – 653 .
Whipple , G. M. ( 1909 ). The observer as reporter: A survey of the psychology of
testimony . Psychological Bulletin , 6 , 753 – 770 .
Whipple , G. M. ( 1913 ). Psychology of testimony and report . Psychological Bulletin ,
10 , 264 – 268 .
Wogalter , M. S. ( 1991 ). Effects of post - exposure description and imaging on subse-
quent face recognition performance . Proceedings of the Human Factors Society , 35 ,
575 – 579 .
256
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Wogalter , M. S. ( 1996 ). Describing faces from memory: Accuracy and effects of sub-
sequent recognition performance . Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society , 40 , 536 – 540 .
Yuille , J. C. & Cutshall , J. L. ( 1986 ). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime .
Journal of Applied Psychology , 71 , 291 – 301 .
Chapter Fifteen
Recent Developments
in North American Identifi cation
Science and Practice
Steven D. Penrod
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
and
Margaret Bull Kovera
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
Mistaken e yewitness i dentifi cations
A number of scholars, beginning with Borchard & Lutz (1932) , have studied
the causes of erroneous convictions by examining errors in hundreds of crimi-
nal cases (see especially Frank & Frank, 1957 ; Brandon & Davies, 1973 ; Huff,
Rattner & Sagarin, 1986 ; Rattner, 1988 ; Gross, Jacoby, Matheson, Montgomery
& Patil, 2005 ; Garrett, 2008 ). It has long been clear that a principal source
of the problem is mistaken eyewitness identifi cations. Gross et al . (2005) , for
example, examined 340 exonerations (327 men and 13 women) that occurred
between 1989 and 2003. The cases included 121 rape exonerations (88%
involving mistaken identifi cations), six robbery exonerations (all mistaken
identifi
cations) and 205 murder exonerations (50% involved mistaken
identifi cations).
The prominence of mistaken identifi cations as a source of erroneous convic-
tions has been powerfully reaffi rmed by DNA exonerations evidence (Scheck,
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions
Edited by Ray Bull, Tim Valentine and Tom Williamson
© 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
258
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Neufeld & Dwyer, 2000 ). Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero & Brimacombe
(1998) looked at the fi rst 40 exoneration cases and found that 36 (90%)
involved mistaken eyewitness identifi cations by one or more eyewitnesses. One
person was identifi ed by fi ve eyewitnesses. These results are confi rmed in a
study of the fi rst 200 DNA exoneration cases by Garrett
(2008) , which
revealed that (79%) were convicted, based at least in part on mistaken eyewit-
ness testimony; in a quarter of the cases eyewitness testimony was the only
direct evidence against the defendant. Eyewitnesses are not the sole problem:
55% of the cases involved defective blood, fi ngerprint or hair evidence. These
DNA exonerations, like those studied by Gross et al . (2005) , with which there
is some overlap in cases, were predominantly rape (n = 141), rape - murder
(n = 44) and murder (n = 12) cases.
Just h ow o ften d o e yewitnesses m ake i dentifi cation e rrors?
Archival studies of exonerations and DNA exculpations tell us that witnesses
do make errors that result in erroneous convictions by juries and judges. Of
course, these cases may be only the tip of a very large iceberg. Experimental
psychologists who study eyewitness identifi cation issues are certainly not sur-
prised by the DNA exoneration results. These researchers have a variety of
data sources that underscore the frequency of eyewitness error. They can point
to data on accuracy rates of actual eyewitnesses that emerge from fi eld studies
of eyewitness identifi cations. In such studies researchers seek to reap the ben-
efi ts of both laboratory experiments and realistic crime conditions by conduct-
ing well
- controlled experiments in fi eld settings. Cutler
& Penrod
(1995)
assembled data from four such studies (Brigham, Maas, Snyder & Spaulding,
1982 ; Krafka & Penrod, 1985 ; Platz & Hosch, 1988 ; Pigott, Brigham &
Bothwell, 1990 ) involving 291 eyewitnesses who were administered 536 sepa-
rate identifi cation tests. The average correct identifi cation rate from presenta-
tions that included the target (i.e., the culprit) was 41.8%. In the three studies
where the data are available, nearly a third of witnesses (31.5%) missed the
target and picked a fi ller (or foil – one of the known innocents placed in arrays
along with the suspect). False identifi cations in target - absent presentations, in
which the culprit was not included, were assessed in two of the studies and
over a third of the witnesses (35.8%) incorrectly chose an innocent fi ller. These
results indicate that identifi cations of persons seen briefl y in non - stressful con-
ditions and after brief delays are frequently wrong – only two out of fi ve guilty
persons were correctly identifi ed and an innocent person was falsely identifi ed
in about one in three arrays.
Meta - analytic research by Haber & Haber (2001) provides further evidence
about witness accuracy rates in experimental studies and, at the same time,
supports the conclusion that witnesses who believe that they have seen actual
crimes perform similarly to witnesses who are aware that they are participating
in experiments. Haber
& Haber examined experiments in which witness
-
participants viewed a crime and later attempted to identify the perpetrator. In
Recent Developments in Identifi cation Science and Practice
259
23 studies the participant - witnesses watched a video, slide presentation or movie
of a crime. In 14 of these studies, a crime was staged in the presence of partici-
pants. Later – before attempting identifi cations – these witnesses were informed
the crime was staged. In seven studies, the witnesses believed they
had seen a
real crime and also believed the line - up presentation was real. As Table 15.1
shows, performance was quite similar (not signifi cantly different at p > 0.05)
across the three groups of studies, with about one in three positive identifi -
cations being an erroneous fi ller identifi cation in target
- present arrays and
about 50% of decisions represent erroneous fi ller choices in target - absent arrays.
Larger - scale analyses of experimental studies yield very similar results. A
meta - analysis by Ebbesen & Flowe (2001) also examined studies of correct
and false identifi cations in studies using simultaneous and sequential proce-
dures. Simultaneous presentations are the traditional method of presenting
suspects and foils to witnesses – either in a line - up or a photo array in which
the suspect and foils can be seen simultaneously. In sequential presentations
the witness is shown one individual at a time. Depending on the sequential
method used, the witness may be shown the individuals once or more than
once, may be called upon to decide whether each individual is the perpetrator/
target on seeing each individual, or may have an opportunity to go back
through the individuals before deciding. Another important variation in
sequential procedures is whether viewings stop after a selection is made or the
witness is permitted to continue looking at faces and make additional selec-
tions. The Ebbesen & Flowe sample of studies consisted of 113 experiments
from 82 papers, with a total of 152 line - ups. The sample of 136 line - ups with
adults included 11 sequential - only line - ups, 17 line - ups using both procedures
and 108 simultaneous - only line - ups. Ebbesen & Flowe reported that in 114
simultaneous, target
- present line
- ups, the target was identifi ed 49% of the
time. In the 23 sequential target - present line - ups, a correct identifi cation was
made 45% of the time. The difference in correct identifi cations between simul-
taneous and sequential line - ups was not statistically signifi cant. Unfortunately,
they do not report fi ller identifi cation rates in target - present arrays. In target -
absent line - ups, witnesses made false identifi cations in simultaneous line - ups
49% of the time (n = 84), but only 29% of the time in sequential line - ups.
Table 15.1: Witness performance as a function of knowledge about real vs.
demonstration studies
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 49
