Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay.

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This article should be addressed to Gary L. Wells, Psychology Department, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011. E-mail: glwells@iastate.edu Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 9, No. 1, 42--52 1076-898X/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-898X.9.1.42 42 cases, the Court also endorsed the idea that what the eyewitness says about his or her view and what the eyewitness says about how much attention was paid to the culprit at the time of witnessing are central factors in deciding whether the eyewitness identification was accurate. The fact that all these factors (confidence, view, attention) are malleable as a function of postidentification feedback is a serious concern. In effect, mistaken eyewitnesses can be made to appear very credible simply by telling the eyewitnesses that they identified the right person from a lineup. Lineups, especially photographic lineups---the most common lineups used in the United States---are routinely conducted by the case detective, and feedback to the eyewitness is common (Wells, 1993). Therefore, the status of these variables (confidence, view, attention) as markers of accuracy is undermined by the allowance of feedback. Eyewitnesses who are confident, say they had a good view, and say they paid close attention to the culprit at the time of witnessing might be accurate witnesses, or they might be inaccurate witnesses who were given confirming feedbac