CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4Deception detection and forensic psychologyMemory Processes and InfluencesPolicing Practices and Perceptions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Greene, Edie, Evelo, Andrew J.·2015·Psychology, Crime & Law
DOI 10.1080/1068316x.2014.952236
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine how American and Canadian robbery detectives collect identification evidence and whether their practices are consistent with published guidelines. Via a survey, we asked about the use of various lineup practices (e.g., single-blind vs. double-blind administration, sequential vs. simultaneous presentation, and videotaping). Canadian detectives are more likely to use research-based reforms such as double-blind sequential lineups and videotaping. We also assessed how robbery detectives interact with eyewitnesses at four points during a lineup: prior to the lineup, immediately after an identification, and after 12 seconds and 3 minutes have elapsed without an identification. Results showed that at the latter two junctures, officers from both the countries question eyewitnesses in subtle ways that could influence the likelihood of choosing and confidence in the selection. Canadian detectives are less likely than American detectives to do so, however. This finding can be explained by the absence of written guidelines in most US jurisdictions on how officials should interact with eyewitnesses during lineups.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/1068316x.2014.952236

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Beaudry J., 2006, The Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 4, 178
  2. International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1992, Showups, lineups, and photo identifications (model policy)
  3. International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2010, Eyewitness identification (model policy)
  4. National Institute of Justice, 1999, Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement
  5. Wells G. L., 2006, Wisconsin Law Review, 2006, 615
  6. Wright D., 2008, Memory in the real world, 91

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Greene, E., & Evelo, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Colorado Springs (US)
  • The Graduate Center, CUNY (US)
Corresponding author
Greene, Edie
ORCID
Evelo, Andrew J.
Venue
Psychology, Crime & Law
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-08-27
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
297-313
ISSN
  • 1068-316X (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-2744
DOI
10.1080/1068316x.2014.952236
OpenAlex
W2033216806
Cited by
4
References
29
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychology Crime and Law (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
eyewitness identification, simultaneous vs sequential presentation, video recording, identification confidence, cross-national comparison, United States and Canada

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