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.
22. Eyewitness Identification Reforms: Are Suggestiveness-Induced Hits and Guesses True Hits? Wells GL; Steblay NK; Dysart JE Perspect Psychol Sci; 2012 May; 7(3):264-71. PubMed ID: 26168463 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Cueing confidence in eyewitness identifications: influence of biased lineup instructions and pre-identification memory feedback under varying lineup conditions. Leippe MR; Eisenstadt D; Rauch SM Law Hum Behav; 2009 Jun; 33(3):194-212. PubMed ID: 18600436 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Identification Accuracy: A New Synthesis. Wixted JT; Wells GL Psychol Sci Public Interest; 2017 May; 18(1):10-65. PubMed ID: 28395650 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Eyewitness misidentification: single vs. double-blind comparison of photospread administration. Perlini AH; Silvaggio AD Psychol Rep; 2007 Feb; 100(1):247-56. PubMed ID: 17451032 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Sleep and eyewitness memory: Fewer false identifications after sleep when the target is absent from the lineup. Stepan ME; Dehnke TM; Fenn KM PLoS One; 2017; 12(9):e0182907. PubMed ID: 28877169 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. Investigating investigators: examining witnesses' influence on investigators. Dahl LC; Lindsay DS; Brimacombe CA Law Hum Behav; 2006 Dec; 30(6):707-32. PubMed ID: 16741634 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Field experiments on eyewitness identification: towards a better understanding of pitfalls and prospects. Wells GL Law Hum Behav; 2008 Feb; 32(1):6-10. PubMed ID: 17610051 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. Multiple confidence estimates as indices of eyewitness memory. Sauer JD; Brewer N; Weber N J Exp Psychol Gen; 2008 Aug; 137(3):528-47. PubMed ID: 18729714 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. Regularities in eyewitness identification. Clark SE; Howell RT; Davey SL Law Hum Behav; 2008 Jun; 32(3):187-218. PubMed ID: 17410411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]