Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Regularities in eyewitness identification.

Steven E Clark1, Ryan T Howell, Sherrie L Davey

  • 1Psychology Department, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. clark@ucr.edu

Law and Human Behavior
|April 6, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Response time and encoding strength: Moderating the choice similarity effect.

Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)·2025
Same author

Future time perspective: Factor structure, age pattern, and implications for psychological well-being and life satisfaction.

Journal of personality·2023
Same author

Awe, curiosity, and multicultural experience.

Journal of personality·2022
Same author

Video conferencing during emergency distance learning impacted student emotions during COVID-19.

Computers in human behavior reports·2022
Same author

'I have high self-compassion': A face-valid single-item self-compassion scale for resource-limited research contexts.

Clinical psychology & psychotherapy·2022
Same author

A Salient Sugar Tax Decreases Sugary-Drink Buying.

Psychological science·2021
Same journal

Viewing police body-worn camera video of use-of-force incidents: Does repeated or slow-motion viewing matter?

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

Psychopathy in the context of adversity: Understanding associations of early-life adversity and psychopathic symptoms in a sample of justice-involved youth.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

Race and ethnicity in the courtroom workgroup: Can diversifying the court solve racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes?

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

The justice motive: Retributive and restorative factors affect public evaluations of child protection.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

A risk-need-responsivity (RNR)-informed systematic review of needs during the pretrial period.

Law and human behavior·2026
Same journal

When we do not care about what happens to "criminals": How character judgments influence indifference to incidental suffering in the criminal justice system.

Law and human behavior·2026
See all related articles

Eyewitness identification experiments reveal that suspect identifications are most diagnostic of guilt, while non-identifications indicate innocence. Lineup composition significantly impacts the reliability of foil identifications.

Area of Science:

  • Psychology
  • Forensic Science
  • Legal Psychology

Background:

  • Eyewitness identification is crucial in criminal investigations.
  • Understanding the diagnostic value of different eyewitness responses is vital for legal proceedings.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To meta-analytically assess the diagnostic accuracy of various eyewitness identification responses.
  • To compare the diagnosticity of suspect vs. foil identifications and non-identifications.
  • To examine how lineup composition and type (simultaneous vs. sequential) affect diagnosticity.

Main Methods:

  • Conducted a meta-analysis of 94 comparisons between target-present and target-absent lineups.
  • Analyzed the diagnosticity of correct identifications, correct non-identifications, suspect identifications, foil identifications, and 'don't know' responses.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Examined diagnosticity in relation to lineup composition and lineup procedure.

    • Main Results:

    • Correct identifications and non-identifications were uncorrelated.
    • Suspect identifications were the most diagnostic indicators of guilt or innocence.
    • Non-identifications reliably indicated suspect innocence.
    • Foil identification diagnosticity varied with lineup composition.
    • 'Don't know' responses were nondiagnostic.

    Conclusions:

    • Eyewitness response type has differential diagnostic value in legal contexts.
    • Lineup construction and composition are critical factors influencing identification accuracy and diagnosticity.
    • Findings have significant implications for legal procedures, forensic science, and judicial decision-making.