These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11916205)

  • 1. The damaging effect of confirming feedback on the relation between eyewitness certainty and identification accuracy.
    Bradfield AL; Wells GL; Olson EA
    J Appl Psychol; 2002 Feb; 87(1):112-20. PubMed ID: 11916205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Distorted retrospective eyewitness reports as functions of feedback and delay.
    Wells GL; Olson EA; Charman SD
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2003 Mar; 9(1):42-52. PubMed ID: 12710837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of post-identification feedback, delay, and suspicion on accurate eyewitnesses.
    Quinlivan DS; Neuschatz JS; Douglass AB; Wells GL; Wetmore SA
    Law Hum Behav; 2012 Jun; 36(3):206-14. PubMed ID: 22667810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm.
    Charman SD; Wells GL
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2008 Mar; 14(1):5-20. PubMed ID: 18377163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Eyewitness identification accuracy and response latency: the unruly 10-12-second rule.
    Weber N; Brewer N; Wells GL; Semmler C; Keast A
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2004 Sep; 10(3):139-47. PubMed ID: 15462616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Blind lineup administration as a prophylactic against the postidentification feedback effect.
    Dysart JE; Lawson VZ; Rainey A
    Law Hum Behav; 2012 Aug; 36(4):312-9. PubMed ID: 22849416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Measuring lineup fairness from eyewitness identification data using a multinomial processing tree model.
    Menne NM; Winter K; Bell R; Buchner A
    Sci Rep; 2023 Apr; 13(1):6290. PubMed ID: 37072473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Post-identification feedback to eyewitnesses impairs evaluators' abilities to discriminate between accurate and mistaken testimony.
    Smalarz L; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Apr; 38(2):194-202. PubMed ID: 24341835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is manipulative intent necessary to mitigate the eyewitness post-identification feedback effect?
    Quinlivan DS; Wells GL; Neuschatz JS
    Law Hum Behav; 2010 Jun; 34(3):186-97. PubMed ID: 19399600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Postidentification feedback affects subsequent eyewitness identification performance.
    Palmer MA; Brewer N; Weber N
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2010 Dec; 16(4):387-98. PubMed ID: 21198255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy.
    Steblay NK; Dietrich HL; Ryan SL; Raczynski JL; James KA
    Law Hum Behav; 2011 Aug; 35(4):262-74. PubMed ID: 20632113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Eyewitnesses' free-report verbal confidence statements are diagnostic of accuracy.
    Smalarz L; Yang Y; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2021 Apr; 45(2):138-151. PubMed ID: 34110875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Lineup administrators' expectations: their impact on eyewitness confidence.
    Garrioch L; Brimacombe CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Jun; 25(3):299-315. PubMed ID: 11480805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Suspect filler similarity in eyewitness lineups: a literature review and a novel methodology.
    Fitzgerald RJ; Oriet C; Price HL
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):62-74. PubMed ID: 24955851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Practice and feedback effects on the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness memory.
    Perfect TJ; Hollins TS; Hunt AL
    Memory; 2000 Jul; 8(4):235-44. PubMed ID: 10932793
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Predictors of eyewitness identification decisions from video lineups in England: a field study.
    Horry R; Memon A; Wright DB; Milne R
    Law Hum Behav; 2012 Aug; 36(4):257-65. PubMed ID: 22849411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Double-blind photo lineups using actual eyewitnesses: an experimental test of a sequential versus simultaneous lineup procedure.
    Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE
    Law Hum Behav; 2015 Feb; 39(1):1-14. PubMed ID: 24933175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Actual vs. perceived eyewitness accuracy and confidence and the featural justification effect.
    Dobolyi DG; Dodson CS
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2018 Dec; 24(4):543-563. PubMed ID: 30035558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Confirming feedback following a mistaken identification impairs memory for the culprit.
    Smalarz L; Wells GL
    Law Hum Behav; 2014 Jun; 38(3):283-92. PubMed ID: 24707912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Eyewitness accuracy rates in sequential and simultaneous lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison.
    Steblay N; Dysart J; Fulero S; Lindsay RC
    Law Hum Behav; 2001 Oct; 25(5):459-73. PubMed ID: 11688368
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.