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 *

87 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17451032)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. A problem with double-blind photospread procedures: photospread administrators use one eyewitness's confidence to influence the identification of another eyewitness.
    Douglass AB; Smith C; Fraser-Thill R
    Law Hum Behav; 2005 Oct; 29(5):543-62. PubMed ID: 16254742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.
    Greathouse SM; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Feb; 33(1):70-82. PubMed ID: 18594956
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Blind sequential lineup administration reduces both false identifications and confidence in those false identifications.
    Charman SD; Quiroz V
    Law Hum Behav; 2016 Oct; 40(5):477-87. PubMed ID: 27227276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Memory strength and lineup presentation moderate effects of administrator influence on mistaken identifications.
    Zimmerman DM; Chorn JA; Rhead LM; Evelo AJ; Kovera MB
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2017 Dec; 23(4):460-473. PubMed ID: 29265857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Cowitness identification speed affects choices from target-absent photospreads.
    Douglass AB; Lucas CA; Brewer N
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Dec; 44(6):474-484. PubMed ID: 32757573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Administrator blindness affects the recording of eyewitness lineup outcomes.
    Rodriguez DN; Berry MA
    Law Hum Behav; 2020 Feb; 44(1):71-87. PubMed ID: 31535891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Lineup administrator influences on eyewitness identification decisions.
    Clark SE; Marshall TE; Rosenthal R
    J Exp Psychol Appl; 2009 Mar; 15(1):63-75. PubMed ID: 19309217
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Investigating investigators: how presentation order influences participant-investigators' interpretations of eyewitness identification and alibi evidence.
    Dahl LC; Brimacombe CA; Lindsay DS
    Law Hum Behav; 2009 Oct; 33(5):368-80. PubMed ID: 18810615
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Viewing videotaped identification procedure increases juror sensitivity to single-blind photo-array administration.
    Modjadidi K; Kovera MB
    Law Hum Behav; 2018 Jun; 42(3):244-257. PubMed ID: 29809027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Investigating investigators: examining the impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators.
    Boyce MA; Lindsay DS; Brimacombe CA
    Law Hum Behav; 2008 Oct; 32(5):439-53. PubMed ID: 18060486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Eyewitness recognition errors: the effects of mugshot viewing and choosing in young and old adults.
    Memon A; Hope L; Bartlett J; Bull R
    Mem Cognit; 2002 Dec; 30(8):1219-27. PubMed ID: 12661853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Exposure duration: effects on eyewitness accuracy and confidence.
    Memon A; Hope L; Bull R
    Br J Psychol; 2003 Aug; 94(Pt 3):339-54. PubMed ID: 14511547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.