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.
159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21222024)
1. The dud effect: adding highly dissimilar fillers increases confidence in lineup identifications. Charman SD; Wells GL; Joy SW Law Hum Behav; 2011 Dec; 35(6):479-500. PubMed ID: 21222024 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The information gained from witnesses' responses to an initial "blank" lineup. Palmer MA; Brewer N; Weber N Law Hum Behav; 2012 Oct; 36(5):439-47. PubMed ID: 22468758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
5. 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]
6. Phenotypic mismatch between suspects and fillers but not phenotypic bias increases eyewitness identifications of Black suspects. Jones JM; Katzman J; Kovera MB Front Psychol; 2024; 15():1233782. PubMed ID: 38680285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Context influences interpretation of eyewitness confidence statements. Cash DK; Lane SM Law Hum Behav; 2017 Apr; 41(2):180-190. PubMed ID: 27598562 [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. 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]
12. Can Lineup Administrators Blind to the Suspect's Identity Influence Witnesses' Decisions? McCallum NA; Brewer N Psychiatr Psychol Law; 2018; 25(1):93-105. PubMed ID: 31984009 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Assessing nonchoosers' eyewitness identification accuracy from photographic showups by using confidence and response times. Sauerland M; Sagana A; Sporer SL Law Hum Behav; 2012 Oct; 36(5):394-403. PubMed ID: 23030820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The importance of decision bias for predicting eyewitness lineup choices: toward a Lineup Skills Test. Baldassari MJ; Kantner J; Lindsay DS Cogn Res Princ Implic; 2019 Jan; 4(1):2. PubMed ID: 30693377 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The single lineup paradigm: A new way to manipulate target presence in eyewitness identification experiments. Oriet C; Fitzgerald RJ Law Hum Behav; 2018 Feb; 42(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 29461076 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Identifying the bad guy in a lineup using confidence judgments under deadline pressure. Brewer N; Weber N; Wootton D; Lindsay DS Psychol Sci; 2012 Oct; 23(10):1208-14. PubMed ID: 22933457 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]