You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Is Manipulative Intent Necessary to Mitigate the Eyewitness Post-Identification Feedback Effect?
Deah S. Quinlivan, Gary L. Wells and Jeffrey S. Neuschatz
Law and Human Behavior
Vol. 34, No. 3 (June 2010), pp. 186-197
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40785175
Page Count: 12
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Query by example, Social psychology, Cognitive psychology, Police lineups, Eyewitness identification, Questionnaires, Jurors, Human behavior, Memory trace, Information feedback
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
Feedback suggestive of mistaken eyewitnesses claiming that they identified the correct person leads to distorted retrospective judgments of certainty, view, and other testimony-relevant measures. This feedback effect can be significantly mitigated if witnesses later learn that the feedback source did not know which lineup member was the correct person and had a manipulative intent (postfeedback suspicion manipulation). We replicated the postfeedback suspicion effect and used a mistake condition showing that the manipulative intent is not a necessary component, thereby ruling out reactance-type interpretations of the post-feedback suspicion effect. Some conditions included instructions to ensure relevant processing of the feedback before the post-feedback suspicion manipulations, but these processing instructions did not mitigate the effect. The results suggest that these retrospective judgments (e.g., certainty, attention, view) remain malleable as new information unfolds.
Law and Human Behavior © 2010 Springer