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.
47. 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]
48. Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identification performance. Horry R; Palmer MA; Brewer N J Exp Psychol Appl; 2012 Dec; 18(4):346-60. PubMed ID: 22924858 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Suspect/foil identification in actual crimes and in the laboratory: a reality monitoring analysis. Behrman BW; Richards RE Law Hum Behav; 2005 Jun; 29(3):279-301. PubMed ID: 15965629 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Age differences in lineup identification accuracy: people are better with their own age. Wright DB; Stroud JN Law Hum Behav; 2002 Dec; 26(6):641-54. PubMed ID: 12508699 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. 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]
52. What we know now: the Evanston Illinois field lineups. Steblay NK Law Hum Behav; 2011 Feb; 35(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 20177754 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. How variations in distance affect eyewitness reports and identification accuracy. Lindsay RC; Semmler C; Weber N; Brewer N; Lindsay MR Law Hum Behav; 2008 Dec; 32(6):526-35. PubMed ID: 18253819 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Eyewitness confidence malleability: Misinformation as post-identification feedback. Greenspan RL; Loftus EF Law Hum Behav; 2020 Jun; 44(3):194-208. PubMed ID: 32378911 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. On the diagnosticity of multiple-witness identifications. Clark SE; Wells GL Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):406-22. PubMed ID: 18095147 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Exploring the effects of age and delay on children's person identifications: verbal descriptions, lineup performance, and the influence of wildcards. Karageorge A; Zajac R Br J Psychol; 2011 May; 102(2):161-83. PubMed ID: 21492140 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Effects of administrator-witness contact on eyewitness identification accuracy. Haw RM; Fisher RP J Appl Psychol; 2004 Dec; 89(6):1106-12. PubMed ID: 15584846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The impact of eyewitness identifications from simultaneous and sequential lineups. Wright DB Memory; 2007 Oct; 15(7):746-54. PubMed ID: 17852725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Eyewitness accuracy rates in police showup and lineup presentations: a meta-analytic comparison. Steblay N; Dysart J; Fulero S; Lindsay RC Law Hum Behav; 2003 Oct; 27(5):523-40. PubMed ID: 14593796 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Creating fair lineups for suspects with distinctive features. Zarkadi T; Wade KA; Stewart N Psychol Sci; 2009 Dec; 20(12):1448-53. PubMed ID: 19883492 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]