Some commentators view my analyses (Clark, 2012, this issue) as an important step forward in assessing the costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform. Others suggest that the trade-off between correct identifications lost and false identifications avoided is well-known; that the expected utility model is misspecified; and that the loss of correct identifications due to the use of reformed eyewitness identification procedures is irrelevant to policy decisions, as those correct identifications are the illegitimate product of suggestion and lucky guesses. Contrary to these criticisms, the loss of correct identifications has not been adequately considered in theoretical or policy matters, criticisms regarding the various utilities do not substantively change the nature of the trade-off, and the dismissal of lost correct identifications is based not on data but on an outdated theory of recognition memory.
BeaudryJ. L. (2008). Video-recorded lineup procedures and detecting identification accuracy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queens University, Ontario, Canada.
2.
ClarkS. E. (2003). A memory and decision model for eyewitness identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 629–654.
3.
ClarkS. E. (2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259.
4.
ClarkS. E.EricksonM. A.BrenemanJ. (2011). Probative value of absolute and relative judgments in eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 364–380.
5.
ClarkS. E.GodfreyR. D. (2009). Eyewitness identification evidence and innocence risk. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 22–42.
6.
ClarkS. E.GronlundS. D. (1996). Global matching models of recognition memory: How the models match the data. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3, 37–60.
7.
ClarkS. E.RushR. A.MorelandM. B. (2012). Lineup composition. Manuscript under review.
8.
CoonD. J. (1982). Eponymy, obscurity, Twitmyer, and Pavlov. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 18, 255–262.
9.
DysartJ. E.FugalL. (2006, March). Improving the sequential lineup? The effects of double blind testing and the envelope technique on post-identification feedback. Paper presented at American Psychology, Law Society Annual Meeting, St. Petersburg, FL.
10.
DysartJ. E.RaineyA.OwensJ.ChongK.LawsonV. Z. (2008, March). Double-blind lineup administration and the post-identification feedback effect. Paper presented at American Psychology, Law Society Annual Meeting, Jacksonville, FL.
11.
EganJ. P. (1958). Recognition memory and the operating characteristic (Technical Note No. 58-51). Bloomington, IN: USAF Operational Applications Laboratory.
12.
GreathouseS. M.KoveraM. B. (2009). Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x10.1007/s10979-008-9136-x
13.
HawR.MitchellT.WellsG. (2003, July). The influence of lineup administrator knowledge and witness perceptions on eyewitness identification decisions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Edinburgh, Scotland.
14.
LaudanL. (2012). Eyewitness identifications: One more lesson on the costs of excluding relevant evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 272–274.
15.
LiuB.DittoP. H. (2012). What dilemma? Moral intuitions shape factual beliefs. Manuscript under review.
16.
MalpassR. S. (2006). A policy evaluation of simultaneous and sequential lineups, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 394–418.
17.
MalpassR. S.LindsayR. C. L. (1999). Measuring lineup fairness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, S1–S7.
18.
MickesL.HweV.CarlisleT. M.McElfreshJ. C.WixtedJ. T. (2011). What does signal detection theory say about eyewitness memory?Paper presented at the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Seattle, WA.
19.
NewmanE. J.LoftusE. F. (2012). A trial by Clarkian logic. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 260–263.
20.
PerliniA. H.SilvaggioA. D. (2007). Eyewitness misidentification: Single vs. double-blind comparison of photospread administration. Psychological Reports, 100, 247–256.
21.
PhillipsM. R.McAuliffB. D.KoveraM. B.CutlerB. L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 940–951.
22.
PielkeR. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
23.
RosenthalR.RubinD. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 377–415.
24.
RussanoM. B.DickinsonJ. J.CassS. A.KoveraM. B.CutlerB. L. (2002, March). Testing the effects of lineup administrator knowledge in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Paper presented at American Psychology-Law Society Biennial Meeting, Austin, TX.
25.
SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E.WellsG. L. (2011). Seventy-two test of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 99–139.
26.
Thompson-CaninnoJ.CottonR.TorneoE. (2009). Picking cotton: Our memoir of injustice and redemption. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
27.
TribeL. H. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard law Review, 84, 1329–1393.
28.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Von NeumannJ.MorgensternO. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
WellsG. L. (1984). The psychology of lineup identifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 89–103.
31.
WellsG. L.OlsonE. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155–167.
WellsG. L.SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E. (2012). Eyewitness identification reforms: Are suggestiveness-induced hits and guesses true hits?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 264–271.
34.
WixtedJ. T. (2007). Dual-process theory and signal-detection theory of recognition memory. Psychological Review, 114, 152–176.
35.
WixtedJ.MickesL. (2012). It is time to abandon “probative value” and embrace receiver operating characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 275–278.
