PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16741635

Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference.

Abstract

More than 25 years of research has accumulated concerning the possible biasing effects of mugshot exposure to eyewitnesses. Two separate metaanalyses were conducted on 32 independent tests of the hypothesis that prior mugshot exposure decreases witness accuracy at a subsequent lineup. Mugshot exposure both significantly decreased proportion correct and increased the false alarm rate, the effect being greater on false alarms. A mugshot commitment effect, arising from the identification of someone in a mugshot, was a substantial moderator of both these effects. Simple retroactive interference, where the target person is not included among mugshots and no one in a mugshot is present in the subsequent lineup, did not significantly impair target identification. A third metaanalysis was conducted on 19 independent tests of the hypothesis that failure of memory for facial source or context results in transference errors. The effect size was more than twice as large for "transference" studies involving mugshot exposure in proximate temporal context with the target than for "bystander" studies with no subsequent mugshot exposure.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kenneth A Deffenbacher, Brian H Bornstein, Steven D Penrod. 2006. Mugshot exposure effects: Retroactive interference, mugshot commitment, source confusion, and unconscious transference.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9008-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Disorientation inhibits landmark use in 12-18-month-old infants.

Recent research has indicated that, particularly under conditions of inertial disorientation, mammals may be sensitive to landmark configuration geometry at the expense of individual featural information when locating hidden goals. The current study sought to establish whether landmark use could be demonstrated in 12-18-month-old infants with and without a disorientation procedure, and with geometrically ambiguous landmark configurations. A peekaboo paradigm was employed in which infants learned to anticipate a peekaboo event after a cue from two locations within a circular arena, followed by a test trial from a novel position in which no peekaboo occurred after the cue. In all conditions, an isosceles triangle arrangement of landmarks was used, with peekaboo occurring between the landmarks of one of the two equal "sides", thus being geometrically ambiguous. In two conditions, the landmarks were distinctive, and in two further conditions, they were identical. In one of the distinctive conditions and one of the identical landmark conditions, infants underwent a disorientation procedure in between training and test trials. Only oriented infants with distinctive landmarks were successful in test trials, thus suggesting that infants are able to use the individual features of landmarks to locate a goal, but can only do so if oriented.

Confusion↗

Roles of egocentric and allocentric spatial representations in locomotion and reorientation.

Four experiments investigated the nature of spatial representations used in locomotion. Participants learned the layout of several objects and then pointed to the objects while blindfolded in 3 conditions: before turning (baseline), after turning to a new heading (updating), and after disorientation (disorientation). The internal consistency of pointing in the disorientation condition was relatively high and equivalent to that in the baseline and updating conditions, when the layout had salient intrinsic axes and the participants learned the locations of the objects on the periphery of the layout. The internal consistency of pointing was disrupted by disorientation when participants learned the locations of objects while standing amid them and the layout did not have salient intrinsic axes. It was also observed that many participants retrieved spatial relations after disorientation from the original learning heading. These results indicate that people form an allocentric representation of object-to-object spatial relations when they learn the layout of a novel environment and use that representation to locate objects around them. Egocentric representations may be used to locate objects when allocentric representations are not of high fidelity.

Confusion↗