Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 81Deception detection and forensic psychologyMemory Processes and InfluencesJury Decision Making Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Suspect/Foil Identification in Actual Crimes and in the Laboratory: A Reality Monitoring Analysis.

Behrman, Bruce W., Richards, Regina E.·2005·Law and Human Behavior
DOI 10.1007/s10979-005-3617-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Four reality monitoring variables were used to discriminate suspect from foil identifications in 183 actual criminal cases. Four hundred sixty-one identification attempts based on five and six-person lineups were analyzed. These identification attempts resulted in 238 suspect identifications and 68 foil identifications. Confidence, automatic processing, eliminative processing and feature use comprised the set of reality monitoring variables. Thirty-five verbal confidence phrases taken from police reports were assigned numerical values on a 10-point confidence scale. Automatic processing identifications were those that occurred "immediately" or "without hesitation." Eliminative processing identifications occurred when witnesses compared or eliminated persons in the lineups. Confidence, automatic processing and eliminative processing were significant predictors, but feature use was not. Confidence was the most effective discriminator. In cases that involved substantial evidence extrinsic to the identification 43% of the suspect identifications were made with high confidence, whereas only 10% of the foil identifications were made with high confidence. The results of a laboratory study using the same predictors generally paralleled the archival results. Forensic implications are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10979-005-3617-y

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
  2. Behrman, B. W., & Davey, S. L. (2001). Eyewitness identification in actual criminal cases: An archival analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 475–491. · DOI
  3. Dunning, D., & Perretta, S. (2002). Automaticity and eyewitness accuracy: A 10–12 second rule for distinguishing accurate from inaccurate positive identifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 951–962. · DOI
  4. Dunning, D., & Stern, L. B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identifications via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818–835. · DOI
  5. Egeth, H. E. (1993, May). What do we not know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 577–580. · DOI
  6. Hair, J. E., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  7. Hay, D. C., Young, A. W., & Ellis, H. D. (1986). What happens when a face rings a bell? The automatic processing of famous faces. In H. D. Ellis, M. A. Jeeves, F. Newcombe, & A. Young (Eds.), Aspects of face processing (pp. 136–144). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff. · DOI
  8. Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67–85. · DOI
  9. Johnson, M. K., Foley, M. A., Suengas, A. G., & Raye, C. L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 371–376. · DOI
  10. Lindsay, R. C. L., & Wells, G. L. (1985). Improving eyewitness identifications from lineups: Simultaneous versus sequential lineups presentations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 556–564. · DOI
  11. Loftus, E. F. (1993, May). Psychologists in the eyewitness world. American Psychologist, 48, 550–552. · DOI
  12. Luus, C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1994). Eyewitness identification confidence. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 348–361). New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  13. Norusis, M. J. (1997). SPSS Professional Statistics 7.5. Chicago: SPSS.
  14. Penrod, S. (2003, Spring). Eyewitness identification evidence: How well are witnesses and police performing? Criminal Justice Magazine, 54, 36–47.
  15. Porter, S., Yuille, J. C., & Lehman, D. R. (1999). The nature of real, implanted and fabricated memories for emotional childhood events: Implications for the recovered memory debate. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 517–536. · DOI
  16. Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Schooler, J. W., Gerhard, C. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1986). Qualities of the unreal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 171–181.
  18. Sporer, S. L. (1994). Decision times and eyewitness accuracy in simultaneous and sequential lineups. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 300–327). New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  19. SPSS User’s Guide (3rd ed.). (1988). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
  20. Steblay, N., Dysart, J., Fulero, S., & Lindsay, R. C. (2001). Accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: A meta-analytic comparison. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 459–473. · DOI
  21. Stern, L. B., & Dunning, D. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate identifications: A reality monitoring approach. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 273–299). New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  22. 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. 144–160). New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  23. Wells, G. L. (1993, May). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571. · DOI
  24. Wells, G. L., Seelau, E. P., Rydell, S. M., & Luus, C. A. E. (1994). Recommendations for properly conducted lineup identification tasks. In D. F. Ross, J. D. Read, & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments (pp. 302–344). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Wells, G. L., & Turtle, J. W. (1988). What is the best way to encode faces? In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues (pp. 163–168). New York: Wiley.
  26. Wright, D. B., & McDaid, A. T. (1996). Comparing system and estimator variables using data from real line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 75–84. · DOI
  27. Yuille, J. C. (1993, May). We must study forensic eyewitnesses to know about them. American Psychologist, 48, 572–573. · DOI
  28. Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory for a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301. · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Behrman, B. W., & Richards, R. E.
Affiliations
California State University, Sacramento (US)
Venue
Law and Human Behavior
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2005-06
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
279-301
ISSN
  • 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/s10979-005-3617-y
OpenAlex
W2052275342
Cited by
81
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Law › Jury Decision Making Processes
Keywords
suspect identification, reality monitoring, eyewitness identification, lineups, identification confidence, automatic processing, criminal cases, forensic implications, police reports
MeSH terms
Adult, California, Crime, Criminal Law, Female, Humans, Laboratories, Male, Visual Perception, Recognition, Psychology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.